HHS Public Access: Motivation and Self-Regulation in Addiction: A Call For Convergence

HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 09.
Author Manuscript
Published in final edited form as:

Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 January ; 8(1): 3–24. doi:10.1177/1745691612457575.
Motivation and Self-Regulation in Addiction: A Call for

Convergence
Cătălina E. Köpetz1,2, Carl W. Lejuez1,2, Reinout W. Wiers3, and Arie W. Kruglanski2
1Center for Addictions, Personality, and Emotion Research, University of Maryland 2Department
of Psychology, University of Maryland 3Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam
Author Manuscript
Abstract
Addiction models have frequently invoked motivational mechanisms to explain the initiation and
maintenance of addictive behaviors. However, in doing so, these models have emphasized the
unique characteristics of addictive behaviors and overlooked the commonalities that they share
with motivated behaviors in general. As a consequence, addiction research has failed to connect
with and take advantage of promising and highly relevant advances in motivation and self-
regulation research. The present article is a call for a convergence of the previous approaches to
addictive behavior and the new advances in basic motivation and self-regulation. The authors
emphasize the commonalities that addictive behaviors may share with motivated behavior in
general. In addition, it is suggested that the same psychological principles underlying motivated
action in general may apply to understand challenging aspects of the etiology and maintenance of
Author Manuscript
addictive behaviors.
Keywords
addiction; brain disease; motivation; self-regulation
Substance abuse and drug addiction are typically characterized by intense and, at times,
uncontrollable drug craving, along with compulsive drug seeking and use that take place at
the expense of most other activities and persist even in the face of devastating consequences
(National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2012a, 2012b). They represent a major public health
concern that affects both individuals and society. Chronic diseases, such as cancer and HIV/
AIDS, as well as drunk driving, child abuse, violence and crime, homelessness, and school-
Author Manuscript
and work-related problems are all related to or impacted by substance abuse. Given the
importance and the magnitude of substance-related problems, researchers across various
disciplines have deployed a substantial amount of effort and resources to understand the
© The Author(s) 2013

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Corresponding Author: Cătălina E. Köpetz, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, 2103 Cole Activities House,
College Park, MD 20742, ckopetz@umd.edu.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
Köpetz et al. Page 2
causes and consequences of substance abuse and to develop effective prevention and
Author Manuscript
treatment strategies.
Historically, the phenomena of substance abuse and drug addiction have been approached
from different perspectives, emphasizing the importance of different factors in the etiology,
development, and maintenance of addictive behavior. The prominence of socioeconomic
factors (Chein, Gerard, Lee, & Rosenfeld, 1964), cultural factors related to the norms
associated with drug use (Lindesmith & Gagnon, 1964), developmental factors (Jessor &
Jessor, 1977; D. Kandel, 1975; D. B. Kandel & Jessor, 2002), biopsychological factors (e.g.,
Flay & Petraitis, 1994), and cognitive factors (e.g., M. H. Becker, Drachman, & Kirscht,
1974), just to name a few, waxed and waned in addiction models. These perspectives have
proliferated and shifted with social, political, and cultural changes, partly depending on the
drug in question and on the population under study (see N. D. Campbell, 2010, for an
epistemological perspective).
Author Manuscript
Motivation and motivational constructs have been accorded a central place in many
theoretical approaches to addiction. Across areas of investigation, substance use has been
approached in terms of its instrumentality to fulfill different motivations or goals. The most
common explanation of addiction typically takes the form of a two-sided hedonic
hypothesis: Addictive drugs are taken to achieve a pleasant drug “high” (Everitt & Robbins,
2005; Hyman, Malenka, & Nestler, 2006; Robinson & Berridge, 1993, 2003; Stewart, de
Wit, & Eikelboom, 1984; Stewart & Wise, 1992) and/or to escape an aversive withdrawal
“low” or to cope with negative affect (Baker, Morse, & Sherman, 1987; Baker, Piper,
McCarthy, Majeskie, & Fiore, 2004; Koob & Le Moal, 2008; O’Brien, 1976; Solomon,
1977; Solomon & Corbit, 1974; Wikler, 1948). In addition to these basic motivations,
substance use behavior has been discussed in terms of its instrumentality to fulfilling
Author Manuscript
heterogeneous motives, such as socializing or fitting in (with a drug using culture).

Accordingly, initiation and maintenance of substance use are explained by individuals’
expectancies of positive outcomes as a result of substance use (see B. T. Jones, Corbin, &
Fromme, 2001, for a review; Cooper, Frone, Russell, & Mudar, 1995; Cox & Klinger, 1988,
2004; Kuntsche, Knibbe, Gmel, & Engels, 2005; Palfai & Weafer, 2006). Similarly, in
behavioral economics, substance use and addiction are approached as the result of a
“rational” choice justified by instrumentality of drug use to maximization of a desired
outcome (e.g., feeling good, not feeling bad, smooth social interaction) and the lack of
alternative options or means to these particular outcomes (G. Becker & Murphy, 1988;
Heyman, 2009; Rachlin, 1997).1
Regardless of the perspective taken and the language used, there is little debate about the
Author Manuscript
importance of motivation in understanding addiction. However, there is little agreement

about the manner in which motivation and goals operate in driving addictive behavior
(Bevins & Bardo, 2004). Addiction researchers have focused predominantly on identifying
1Note that there are important theoretical and empirical approaches to addiction that may not receive extensive attention here. The
scope of this article is to discuss motivational and self-regulation mechanisms and their relevance for addiction, rather than to provide
a comprehensive theoretical analysis. Therefore, our discussion will be mainly focused on the theoretical perspectives that emphasize
motivation. Other concepts and empirical research will be discussed throughout the article as they become relevant to the current
analysis.
and classifying specific motivational contents and their corresponding processes and have
Author Manuscript
neglected the general motivational process at the root of all behavior. It is unclear what
relevant motivational principles may account for the changes in addictive phenomena that
occur over time and across situations and for the alternations between episodes of binging
and abstinence that constitute the defining aspect of addictive behavior. Whether drawing on
sophisticated neural circuitry or economic principles and mathematical functions as
explanatory mechanisms, motivational research on addiction has been mainly phenomenon-
and data-driven rather than theory-driven, and hence it “rests on lists rather than principles,”
as Wise (2004, p. 161) aptly put it.
This is surprising and unfortunate given the recent advances in basic motivation and self-
regulation research, which emphasize the motivational process rather than specific
motivational contents and uncover the principles that regulate motivated action in general.
These developments remain relatively foreign to addiction researchers, with two important
Author Manuscript
consequences. On the one hand, addiction is viewed as a “special,” unique phenomenon

without sufficient attention to the continuities and commonalities that it shares with
behaviors traditionally not considered addictive. On the other hand, motivation and self-
regulation researchers have largely ceased addressing addiction and stopped short of
extending their theories and empirical work to addictive phenomena.
This article is a call for convergence. We want to argue that addictive behavior is a special
case of motivated behavior. As such, the same principles that apply to the regulation of
motivated action in general should be relevant to the development and maintenance of
addiction. In doing so, we will discuss previous approaches and recent empirical evidence
across different areas. Although there has been a striking dissociation across different
perspectives regarding the factors responsible for the etiology, development, and
Author Manuscript
maintenance of addiction, we emphasize the commonalities and highlight the continuities

that addiction shares with behaviors traditionally not considered addictive. We will then
outline a theoretical framework that identifies the basic motivational principles that underlie
the general dynamics of human action and that may therefore afford the treatment of
seemingly disparate aspects of addiction and other motivated behaviors in an integrative
manner. This perspective may converge with the current addiction approaches, thus
contributing to a more complete understanding of addiction with important implications for
prevention and treatment.
What Is So Special (and Nonspecial) About Addiction?

“Addiction” (from the Latin addicere) is a term that has been used since the 15th century to
denominate a state of being surrendered (devoted) to something habitually or compulsively
Author Manuscript
(“Addiction,” n.d.). As apparent in this definition, addiction is a term that has a broad
general meaning and could be used in connection not only with eating, sexual behavior,
gambling, and substance use but also with TV watching (Smith, 1986), religious confessions
(Lewis, 1992), status (Scitovsky, 1992), and an increasing list of other behaviors (Ainslie,
1999; Orford, 2001; Wise, 2002) motivated by the possibility of positive or rewarding
outcomes. As Peele (1985) summarized it, “addiction may occur with any potent
experience” (p. 25). Accordingly, some scholars have argued that drug addiction is defined
by a pattern of behavior that can be simply identified as habitual responses to the rewarding
Author Manuscript
properties of different substances and have emphasized the commonalities between drug
abuse and other habits motivated by potent experience (eating, sex, etc.; Ainslie, 1992; G.
Becker, 1992; Heyman, 2009; Holden, 2001; Orford, 2001; Shaffer et al., 2004; Weil &
Rosen, 1993; Wise, 2004).
It is of interest that until recently, mainstream addiction research has greatly departed from
this broad definition of addiction that can encompass any kind of behavior whatsoever.
Instead, there has been a clear tendency to overidentify addiction with substance abuse (e.g.,
Holden, 2001) and to distinguish drug addiction in particular as a unique phenomenon,
quantitatively and qualitatively distinct from behaviors and habits of everyday life.
However, recent evidence in psychology, behavioral economics, and neuroscience seems to
increasingly suggest that the qualitative dichotomy is unwarranted and that addiction to
drugs shares essential commonalities with motivated or goal-directed behaviors in general.
Author Manuscript
Our next section will review some of the traditional perspectives, as well as the recent
evidence, and discuss the implications for a view of addiction as motivated behavior.
Addiction: Dependence and negative reinforcement

In their attempts to understand the etiology and maintenance of drug addiction, late 20th-
century researchers focused mainly on drugs’ pharmacological properties. It has been argued
that, because of their pharmacological properties, psychoactive drugs (unlike other
activities) are physiologically, rather than merely psychologically, addictive (Leshner, 1997;
Wise, 2002). That is, the use of psychoactive drugs initiated by the desire to obtain a “drug
high” may develop into drug dependence, as revealed by withdrawal symptoms when drug
administration is interrupted. The classical physical dependence symptoms, such as cramps,
sweating, nausea, convulsions, and so on, are quite dramatic and can be objectively
Author Manuscript
measured. Thus, the notion of physiological dependence offered a potential explanation of

addiction as the result of the addict’s attempts to eliminate the negative experience of
withdrawal (Koob & Le Moal, 1997, 2001, 2008; Solomon, 1977; Solomon & Corbit, 1973;
Wikler, 1948).
However, as research progressed, it soon became apparent that dependence is neither a

necessary nor a sufficient condition for addiction and therefore not a key element in
motivating drug seeking and use (Koob & Volkow, 2010; Robinson & Berridge, 2003;
Stewart & Wise, 1992; but see Shaham, Erb, & Stewart, 2000, and Shalev, Grimm, &
Shaham, 2002, for reviews; Wise, 1987). First, dependence models did not offer an
explanation for why drug self-administration habits get established. Even in the case of
opiates, which served as the model or prototype for the dependence theory, compulsive self-
Author Manuscript
administration is rapidly established in the absence of classic dependence signs (Deneau,

Yanagita, & Seevers, 1969; D. P. Devine & Wise, 1994; Woods & Schuster, 1971).
Furthermore, the dependence models did not explain why relapse rates are so high in the
absence of any withdrawal symptom for days, months, and even years after the addict has
been adequately detoxified and drug free (Mello & Mendelson, 1965; Woods, Ikomi, &
Winger, 1971; Wise & Bozarth, 1987). Such evidence led many to question the usefulness
of dependence in explaining addiction. If dependence theory fails in the prototypical case of
opiate self-administration, then the notion of dependence is even less useful to explain
Author Manuscript
addiction to substances that produce weak or atypical dependence signs (Heyman, 2009; R.
T. Jones, 1980; Shiffman, 1979).
Addiction: Appetitive processes

As the dependence approach became unsatisfactory in accounting for important addiction
phenomena, a significant number of researchers turned to the paradigms and principles of
operant psychology as an alternative source of understanding addictive behavior. According
to these principles, the ability of various agents (i.e., drugs) to establish compulsive self-
administration lies in their reinforcing properties or their capacity to elicit approach or
forward locomotion (D. P. Devine, Leone, Pocock, & Wise, 1993; Glickman & Schiff,
1967; Robinson & Berridge, 2003; Wise & Bozarth, 1987). From this perspective, drugs
meet the Skinnerian definition of operant reinforcement (Skinner, 1953), and the
Author Manuscript
development of drug self-administration follows the laws of reinforcement, as revealed by

the plethora of studies on other habit-forming agents, such as food, water, or sex. According
to this way of thinking, the individual learns an association between drug self-administration
and a desirable end state. It is this association, initially anticipated or expected and
subsequently strengthened through sustained drug administration, that “pushes” the
organism forward toward drug use, hence motivating self-administration. The reinforcing
effects of drugs, and thus their addiction liability, are assumed to result from their capacity
to elicit approach behavior; this is seen to account for both initial development of drug-
seeking habits and the rapid reinstatement of drug use after long periods of drug abstinence
(for detailed discussions, see Everitt & Robbins, 2005; Robinson & Berridge, 2003; Wise,
2002).
From the behavioral perspective, then, it is the motivational process whereby an initially
Author Manuscript
neutral behavior or action (i.e., drug administration) acquires incentive value that prompts
approach behavior. That, in contrast to tolerance and dependence, represents the common
denominator in the addictive properties of all drug classes. Note, however, that the
motivational principle is much broader than the domain of addiction, however defined, and
it constitutes a general mechanism responsible for all human action (Carver & Scheier,
1981; Custers & Aarts, 2005; Heckhausen, 1977; Heckhausen & Kuhl, 1985; Klinger, 1975,
1977; Pervin, 1989; Young, 1961). According to this principle, human life is organized by
self-regulation toward desirable end states and away from undesirable end states. An action
or a specific behavior (i.e., drug self-administration) is enacted as a function of its perceived
instrumentality in the attainment of such states.
Addiction: Neuroadaptations
Author Manuscript
The motivational commonalities between addictive behavior and other behavior types are
further supported by recent neuroscience developments. Accumulating evidence suggests
that alterations in the neural circuitry normally involved in pleasure, reward processing, and
incentive motivation typically associated with addictive drug use are rather common to other
behaviors motivated by potent reinforcers, such as food, sex, thrill and novelty, internet and
video-game use, money, beauty, chocolate, and exercising (Bardo & Dwoskin, 2004;
Ettenberg & Camp, 1986; Holden, 2001; Shaffer et al., 2004; Volkow & Wise, 2005; Wise,
1982, 2002, 2004). Indeed, it is now accepted that all positive reinforcers (drugs included)
Author Manuscript
activate a common biological mechanism: the reward pathway. Most motivated behavior—
even the seeking of food or water when thirsty—is learned (Changizi, McGehee, & Hall,
2002). Both animals and humans learn directly or indirectly that certain (initially random)
actions are rewarding or associated with positive consequences, whereas others are not.
Whenever an action that satisfies a need or fulfills a motivation is performed, the brain,
through the dopamine system, records the experience and its antecedents, and the individual
is likely to do it again (Berridge & Robinson, 2003; Cardinal, Parkinson, Hall, & Everitt,
2002; Hyman, 1994; Hyman et al., 2006; Robinson & Berridge, 2003; Volkow & Wise,
2005; Wise, 2004; Wise & Bozarth, 1987). Dopamine is important through its role in the
selective reinforcement of associations between a reward and otherwise neutral stimuli. It is
implicated in the “stamping in” of memory that attaches motivational importance to all
otherwise neutral environmental stimuli (Flagel et al., 2011; Wise, 2004). But as Holden
Author Manuscript
(2001) put it, “as far as the brain is concerned, a reward is a reward, regardless of whether it
comes from a chemical or an experience” (p. 980). Addictive drugs clearly activate such
neural circuits, often more strongly than do other such stimuli. However, as Wise (2002)
noted, this suggests a quantitative rather than a qualitative difference and emphasizes the
commonalities between addiction and other motivated behaviors rather than their
differences.
Other motivated behaviors

Evidence now exists that the pattern of behavior typically associated with addiction may
characterize other motivated behaviors, including seeking self-esteem, love, money, and sex
(see Vohs & Baumeister, 2008, for an extensive discussion on these commonalities), and
even such “pedestrian” pursuits as golf, jogging, cooking, or playing an instrument
Author Manuscript
(Vallerand et al., 2003).
For instance, the need for esteem and admiration from others and the behaviors associated
with fulfilling such needs may lead to an addiction-like pattern (Baumeister & Vohs, 2001).
Specifically, among people with a strong motivation for admiration and high regard,
favorable outcomes and positive social feedback result in increased desire (i.e., craving) for
even more esteem and admiration. Such individuals will constantly seek new opportunities
to accrue social rewards (W. Campbell, 1999; W. Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002;
Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Rhodewalt, Madrian, & Cheney, 1998; Wilson, Centerbar,
Kermer, & Gilbert, 2005) and are generally unwilling to adjust their high self-esteem, even
when it is not supported by the social environment, in which case they respond with hostility
and aggression (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998).
Author Manuscript
Motivation for love with a specific person has been long associated with patterns of
behavior that bear striking similarities to addictive behaviors (Peele & Brodsky, 1975).
Being with the person one loves elicits euphoric highs that conjure up a permanent craving
of togetherness, elicits time- and energy-consuming behaviors to be with the loved one, and
even produces withdrawal-like symptoms (cf. lovesickness) upon separation from the target
of one’s affection.
In the realm of motivation for money, economists speak of the hedonic treadmill to explain
Author Manuscript
people’s increasing greed with accumulating wealth (Kasser & Ryan, 1993). Adaptation
processes echoing drug tolerance effects have been invoked to explain why acquired wealth
often results in increased (and unsatiated) motivation to amass more money, even when
doing so brings little happiness or satisfaction (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Kasser
& Ryan, 1993; Sirgy, 1998).
Numerous other activities could be pursued in an addictionlike pattern, whereby an initially

neutral activity becomes a consuming passion whose pursuit is experienced as a “necessity”
despite potentially negative consequences. Vallerand and colleagues (2003) called this way
of pursuing an activity “obsessive passion” and investigated it in different domains. For
instance, obsessively passionate cyclists continued to bike outdoors during the cold, snowy
winter season in Québec. They reported that they could not live without biking, could not
control their desire to do it, could not imagine their life without it, and experienced seriously
Author Manuscript
negative emotions when the activity was blocked. Similarly, obsessively passionate dancers
reported a loss of control in their involvement in dancing, expressed in a strong need to
dance, and experienced difficulty in missing a performance even when injured and in pain
(Rip, Fortin, & Vallerand, 2006).
The above discussion reveals that the patterns of behavioral, psychological, and
neurophysiological phenomena that characterize addiction to drugs are hardly unique to drug
use but rather are common to many motivated human behaviors. Evidence across domains
seems to converge on the conclusion that addiction is, after all, a motivated behavior where
drug administration is initiated and maintained due to its rewarding capacity—that is, its
ability to fulfill a motivation. Yet jogging, drinking a cup of coffee, or eating a piece of cake
elicit a similar effect. All reflect individuals’ attempts to attain a desirable end state.
Author Manuscript
Although the research discussed earlier supports the commonalities between substance use
and addiction and motivated behavior in general, such commonalities are typically
approached at a phenotypical level by describing how addiction and other motivated
behaviors “look” similarly either at the neurophysiological level or at the behavioral level.
Most models discuss how drug use, similarly to other motivated behavior (e.g., jogging),
acquires motivational value and tends to perpetuate itself and emphasize a common
neuropsychological basis of such processes. However, there are surprisingly few attempts to
explore the broader implications of such commonalities and to explain how the general
motivational and self-regulatory processes may account for other aspects of addictive
behaviors. For instance, Vohs and Baumeister’s (2008) model emphasizes the similarity
between addiction and other behaviors motivated by self-esteem, love, money, and so on
Author Manuscript
and suggests that such similarities are the result of a common motivational process, whereby
“getting begets wanting” (p. 376). In other words, regardless of the motivational content,
when a motivation leads to satisfaction or some other form of reward, that motivational state
will be strengthened and reemerge. Conversely, when the motivation is unfulfilled, it results
in reduction or extinction. Although this model is one of the few attempts to identify a
general motivational process underlying addiction and other motivated behaviors, it remains
limited to only one aspect of addiction. Specifically, it attempts to explain how the
motivational value of substance use (similarly to other motivated behaviors) is acquired and
strengthened. However, according to the model, long periods of abstinence should result in
Author Manuscript
the reduction and even the abstinence of substance use behavior, which is inconsistent with
the patterns of relapse that often characterize addiction. We believe that approaching
addiction from a motivational and self-regulatory perspective has broader theoretical
implications. That is, the same principles that apply to the regulation of motivated action in
general should also apply to the development and maintenance of addiction, despite the
negative consequences often associated with addictive behaviors.
Our next section attempts to explore these principles and their relevance to addiction in
greater depth, from a conceptual perspective based on the recent advancements into
motivated behavior and self-regulation. Such an analysis may offer new insights into the
self-regulatory mechanisms underlying drug addiction specifically and may address some of
the challenging questions regarding the etiology, development, and maintenance of addictive
behaviors more generally.
Author Manuscript
Addiction as a Motivated Behavior

Motivation concepts have been invoked to explain why people behave as they do and what
makes individuals shift from one state to another (Allport, 1937; Atkinson & Birch, 1970;
Kruglanski & Köpetz, 2009a, 2009b). The processes that translate motivation into action
have been referred to as ones of self-regulation (Carver & Scheier, 2011; Shah, 2008). They
include setting a goal (as a desirable and attainable end state), finding appropriate means,
warding off distractions, and negotiating conflicts. As such, they underlie most of our
behaviors, whether stopping for a cup of coffee, choosing a vacation spot, or, indeed, using
drugs.
A new look in motivation: The basic principles of motivated behavior

Author Manuscript
The past 20 years of research on motivated behavior have been characterized by a social-
cognitive perspective that approaches motivation and goals in terms of cognitive
representations of desired end points interconnected with other goals and means of
attainment (Bargh, 1990; Bargh & Huang, 2009; Carver & Scheier, 1998; Fishbach &
Ferguson, 2007; Gollwitzer & Moskowitz, 1996; Kruglanski, 1996; Kruglanski & Köpetz,
2009a, 2009b; Kruglanski et al., 2002). This definition implies that motivational concepts
abide by the general principles that govern all cognition (e.g., categories, concepts,
judgments, or opinions). Such principles include the notions of construct accessibility
(Higgins, 1996) and interconnectedness between motivational constructs and their
dependence on limited cognitive resources (for reviews, see Fishbach & Ferguson, 2007;
Kruglanski & Köpetz, 2009a, 2009b). From this perspective, motivational phenomena such
Author Manuscript
as goal setting and goal activation, choice of means, and management of goal conflict are
seen as the products of cognitive, motivational, and emotional principles. In what follows,
we outline some of these principles.
Cognitive principles of motivated behavior—As a type of cognition, motivational

constructs are inferred from relevant evidence. For instance, people may adopt a specific
goal (e.g., using cocaine) because they inferred from relevant evidence (e.g., their own
experience, cultural beliefs) that it is a worthy goal to have. Motivational constructs are
stored, and, according to the accessibility principle, they are capable of being activated from
Author Manuscript
memory (Higgins, 1996). Whereas some goals are consciously activated from memory and
pursued (e.g., selecting the next vacation spot), others may become spontaneously accessible
through environmental or internal cues cognitively associated with the goal (e.g., the smell
of freshly brewed coffee may automatically activate the goal of having a cup thereof).
As people pursue their goals, they may consider a multitude of action plans, objects, and
even people that represent the means to attaining their goals. Specifically, then, according to
the interconnectedness principle, goals are cognitively associated with other relevant
constructs, such as their means of attainment (Kruglanski et al., 2002). For instance, the goal
of being physically fit may be connected to different means, such as running, walking, and
weight lifting. Once a goal becomes activated, the activation spreads to its corresponding
behavioral plans (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000; Aarts, Dijksterhuis, & De Vries, 2001; Bargh,
1990; Bargh & Huang, 2009; Ferguson & Bargh, 2004; Kruglanski et al., 2002) and stirs
Author Manuscript
individuals to action.
Effective self-regulation requires the individual to select and implement the appropriate
means to his or her goals. The course of action that the individual may take and the
phenomenological experience associated with his or her choice depends on a variety of
cognitive and motivational factors. Some of these factors refer to the number of goals and
means currently active, the strength of the associations among them, and the value or
importance of each goal, which may vary from one moment to the next, lending dynamism
to individuals’ behavior. For instance, if running is the means most strongly associated (thus
most instrumental) to the goal of being fit, upon goal activation, running will likely be the
course of action that the individual takes. However, if in addition to the goal of being fit, the
goal of talking to a friend happens to be active, the individual may forego running and go for
Author Manuscript
a walk with the friend. Such course of action may allow him or her to fulfill both active
goals simultaneously. Conversely, if being fit is relatively more important than talking to a
friend, the individual may be more likely to choose running rather than walking with a
friend as the means perceived to be most instrumental to attain the important goal.
Finally, as with other cognitive constructs, goals too are constrained by limited cognitive
resources, such that the activation of a given goal may pull resources away from alternative
goals (for reviews, see Fishbach & Ferguson, 2007; Kruglanski & Köpetz, 2009a, 2009b).
For instance, if one’s cognitive resources were committed to the goal of eating (e.g., in a
high state of hunger) one might “forget” (i.e., momentarily suppress or inhibit) one’s
determination to diet and easily succumb to tasty but high-calorie culinary temptations.
Motivational principles of motivated behavior—Beyond their cognitive properties,

Author Manuscript
goals have distinct “motivational” properties. Unlike other cognitive concepts, such as
“tables,” “doctors,” or “butterflies,” goals have a unique motivational meaning: They
represent desirable end states presumed to be attainable through action (Kruglanski, 1996;
Kruglanski et al., 2002). In turn, the desirability or the value of the goal determines goal
commitment, or the degree to which the individual is determined to pursue the goal (which
may express itself in persistence of goal-directed strivings despite obstacles and barriers).
An important consequence of such determination is that activation of a high-importance goal
may result (according to the goal shielding principle) in the inhibition of alternative goals in
Author Manuscript
order to maximize the likelihood of focal goal attainment (Shah, Friedman, & Kruglanski,
2002).
Affective principles of motivated behavior—By sheer association, in addition to the

cognitive properties of the goal (i.e., its activation), its motivational properties (e.g.,
desirability or value) and the emotional aftermath of goal attainment are transferred to the
means, that is, behavioral plans perceived as instrumental to goal attainment. This refers to
the principle of emotional transfer (Fishbach, Shah, & Kruglanski, 2004). It is akin to the
“anticipatory goal responses” discussed by neobehavioral learning theorists, who described
organisms as having emotional reactions during goal pursuit that were analogous to those
elicited upon goal attainment (Spence, 1956). The amount of emotional transfer from goals
to means and, consequently, the emotional experience of engaging in that particular
behavior, depend on (a) the importance of the goal that they serve and (b) the strength of the
Author Manuscript
association between the behavior and the goal (Fishbach et al., 2004). The strength of a
given goal–means association may be reduced by the simultaneous presence of alternative
means (Kruglanski et al., 2002). This is reminiscent of the classic “fan effect” discussed by
Anderson (1974, 1983), wherein the greater the number of specific facts linked to a general
mental construct, the less likely it is that any particular fact will be recalled upon the
presentation of the construct. The strength of the association between the goal and its means
affects the transfer of cognitive (e.g., activation) and affective properties between the two.
Specifically, the higher the number of means associated with a goal, the lower the strength
of the association between any particular goal and means (Kruglanski et al., 2002) and the
lower the level of activation and emotional transfer. As a consequence, when multiple means
are present, the likelihood that any particular one of them is deemed instrumental and
enacted toward goal achievement is reduced.
Author Manuscript
By identifying the general principles of goal-directed actions, the new look approach affords
a broad view of human motivated behavior and captures its dynamic nature. It portrays the
process of carrying out motivated action across specific goal contents that are applicable
across persons and situations. In the following, we explore the implications of this approach
in answering critical questions regarding drug use and addiction. Specifically, we will
discuss the self-regulatory principles that may address (a) the transition from casual use to
addiction, (b) individuals’ vulnerability to such transition, (c) what perpetuates drug abuse,
and (d) how drugs take over one’s behavior despite serious negative consequences and what
are some potential, albeit preliminary, “solutions” to this problem.
The new look approach to motivation in addiction

Author Manuscript
What underlies the transition from casual drug use to addiction?—A

fundamental question in the domain of addictive behavior is how substance use can result in
addiction. People have always used substances, in different forms and for different reasons,
whether for medicine, pleasure, religion, or curiosity (see Gahlinger, 2004, for a historical
overview). Although over 90% of individuals experiment with alcohol and/or illicit
substances, only a small proportion of these individuals become addicts (Robinson &
Berridge, 2003). In fact, the latest report of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health,
reports that in 2010, 8.7% of the population ages 12 or older were classified with substance
Author Manuscript
dependence or abuse in the past year (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, 2011). The challenge for the addiction researcher, then, is to understand the
factors that determine the transition from experimental, casual drug use to addiction and to
identify the most vulnerable individuals.
A major difference between casual drug use and addiction is the evolving function of the
behavior as the individual phases out of the former mode and moves into the latter. Whereas
in the beginning drug use is merely a means to different motivations or goals that individuals
may have (e.g., to satisfy curiosity, to feel good, or to socialize), for the addict, the behavior
of drug use acquires a motivational pull or becomes an end in itself that is compulsively2
pursued despite negative consequences. The question is how does this transition happen and
via what specific processes?
Author Manuscript
Addiction models have typically attempted to answer this question through an interaction of
Pavlovian and instrumental learning processes and their associated neuroadaptations that
occur with repeated drug use (Everitt & Robbins, 2005; Redish, 2004; Robinson & Berridge,
2003). Specifically, through Pavlovian learning, previously neutral stimuli that predict
rewards acquire motivational properties, becoming attractive and desirable incentive stimuli.
Drug use is progressively reinforced because of the rewarding properties of the drugs,
resulting in drug self-administration. During this process, the neural circuits involved in
reward or incentive processing become sensitized or enduringly hypersensitive such that
environmental stimuli closely associated with drug use gain incentive salience, permanently
reminding (explicitly or implicitly) drug users about the rewarding properties of the drug.
This sensitization, also known as a conditioned motivational response, is assumed to be
responsible for drug users’ pathologic “wanting” and insatiable use of the drug (e.g.,
Author Manuscript
Robinson & Berridge, 2004). Furthermore, such transition may reflect important changes in
the frontocortical regions mediating the executive control over behavior typically associated
with drug use (Everitt & Robbins, 2005; Jentsch & Taylor, 1999; Robbins & Everitt, 1999;
Robinson & Berridge, 2003; Volkow, Fowler, Wolf, & Hitzemann, 1991; Volkow,
Hitzemann, Wang, & Fowler, 1992). Such increased hypersensitivity to drug-related cues
coupled with a weakened executive control has been invoked to explain substance use
transition from a voluntary action governed by its consequences to a more habitual behavior
triggered automatically by environmental cues.
Although these models provided important insights into the potential processes mediating
the transition from casual drug use to addiction, it remains unclear how precisely drug-
related stimuli acquire motivational value and what is the nature of such motivational value.
Author Manuscript
Furthermore, most evidence supporting previous approaches comes from animal research
2The term “compulsive” carries considerable meaning, and it may refer to different aspects of addictive behavior, including constant
drug seeking and use, loss of voluntary control, and irresistible strong urges. However, the literature is not clear on whether all these
characteristics need to be present to characterize drug use as compulsive, nor is it clear whether compulsiveness is a necessary
condition of addictive behavior. We use the term here to refer to constant drug use determined by a strong urge that the addict finds
hard to resist despite his or her effort to control it. We believe that this conflictual aspect (which is also captured by the diagnostic
criteria) is crucial. In this regard, we believe that compulsive use (which often but not always accompanies addictive behaviors)
reflects a motivational conflict whereby the individual often succumbs to an immediate and strong urge despite other concerns (e.g.,
safety, health).
where accidental drug self-administration in highly controlled environments becomes

Author Manuscript
systematic as the animals learn to associate a behavior (e.g., lever press, nose poke) with the
rewarding effects of the drugs administered directly (to their brain, heart, etc.) following that
behavior. However, in humans the story is more complicated. The first drug self-
administration is usually accompanied by negative experience. In alcohol and smoking
research, people describe their first drinking or smoking experiences as awkward,
uncomfortable, and physically unpleasant (DiFranza et al., 2002; Fallon & Rozin, 1983;
Moore & Weiss, 1995). In addition to overcoming such initial negative experiences with
substances, humans also need to overcome potentially negative health and legal
consequences that are usually absent in animals. The puzzling question, then, is what makes
them do that? How do drug-seeking and drug-taking behaviors acquire motivational value
despite the initial and long-term adverse consequences of substance use? We believe that the
regulatory processes having to do with the relationship between goals and their means of
Author Manuscript
attainment may provide valuable insights into these issues.
Emotional transfer from goals to means: One important aspect of human drug use is that
the first experiences with drugs are rarely accidental, as they are in animals. People start
using drugs for social rewards, affect enhancement, and/or to reduce boredom (Bogen, 1929;
Brandt, 2007; Cooper, 1994; Cox & Klinger, 1988, 1990, 2004; De Micheli & Formigoni,
2002; Knee & Neighbors, 2002; Kuntsche et al., 2005; Palamar, Mukherjee, & Halkitis,
2008; Perry & Mandell, 1995; Riley, James, Gregory, Dingle, & Cadger, 2001; Sheeran et
al., 2005; Spijkerman, van den Eijnden, & Engels, 2005; Waldrop, Back, Verduin, & Brady,
2007). In other words, people use drugs because they expect drugs to be instrumental to the
achievement of important goals and therefore to the experience of positive consequences
associated with goal attainment.
Author Manuscript
The use of drugs as means to different goals has important implications for the transition
from casual drug use to problematic use and in some cases to addiction. The activity, which
initially served only as a means to a goal, becomes a desirable state in itself, that is, goal
capable of driving behavior automatically in the absence of the original motivation (Allport,
1937; Skinner, 1937; Tolman, 1935; Woodworth, 1918). The idea that positive affect
associated with a behavioral state has motivating properties is the hallmark of incentive
theory. In general, incentive theory (Bindra, 1974; Bolles, 1972; Toates, 1986) proposes that
stimuli or states associated with positive affect form an incentive for which the organism
will work.
Until recently, the processes underlying this phenomenon remained unknown. However,
recent advances in the study of motivation and self-regulation have begun to uncover these
Author Manuscript
processes. Specifically, behaviors that are routinely selected and performed to fulfill a
certain motivation or to achieve a particular goal acquire instrumentality and become
strongly associated with the goal (Aarts, Verplanken, & van Knippenberg, 1998; Bargh,
1990; Ouellette & Wood, 1998; Vohs & Baumeister, 2007; Zhang, Fishbach, & Kruglanski,
2007). This process is reminiscent of Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning (see
Rescorla & Holland, 1982, for a review), but it specifies the mechanism. In other words, the
cognitive association between the representation of the goal and the representation of the
behavior enacted repeatedly to achieve the goal is strengthened over time. Such
strengthening of the association between a goal and a means facilitates a process of

Author Manuscript
emotional transfer. More specifically, the motivational value (desirability) of the goal is
transferred to the objects or activities that are strongly associated with the goal and are
deemed instrumental to goal attainment. This process of emotional transfer from goals to
means is known as means valuation and has been widely supported by recent self-regulation
research (Brendl & Higgins, 1996; Brendl, Markman, & Messner, 2003; Ferguson & Bargh,
2004; Fishbach & Ferguson, 2007; Fishbach et al., 2004; Lewin, 1935; Markman, Brendl, &
Kim, 2007). For instance, in one study, thirsty participants evaluated items more positively
that could satisfy thirst directly (e.g., water and juice) but not items that were only
moderately instrumental to the thirst-quenching goal (e.g., coffee and beer; Ferguson &
Bargh, 2004).
It is thus possible that, just like the jogger who starts jogging to lose weight but becomes a
regular runner who continues to run long after the weight loss goal was achieved because
Author Manuscript
jogging became desirable in itself, the drinker who started drinking to socialize may
continue to drink even outside the socializing contexts because drinking became valuable. In
addition to its capacity to fulfill other important goals, substance use may be particularly
effective in acquiring positive affect because of the initial pharmacological effects of drugs.
The idea that, through extensive drug use, drugs and drug-related stimuli may acquire
positive valence and may spontaneously result in drug seeking and use has received support
from numerous studies exploring measures of implicit attitudes (e.g., traditional and
modified versions of the Implicit Associations Test [IAT], the Extrinsic Affective Simon
Task, or IAT and sequential priming techniques). Results revealed that across different
substance-use categories including drinking, smoking, and cannabis use, substance users
associate their drug of choice with positive affect more strongly than do non– substance
Author Manuscript
users (see Houben, Wiers, & Roefs, 2006, for an extensive review). Furthermore, such
associations often predict increased levels of substance use (e.g., Houben & Wiers, 2008).
For instance, using a Go/No-Go Association Task, Dabbs et al. (2003) showed that smokers
had more positive implicit attitudes toward smoking than nonsmokers did. Furthermore,
smokers exhibit more positive attitudes toward cigarettes and are more willing to purchase
raffle tickets for the opportunity to win three cartons of cigarettes when they have been
deprived of smoking than when they have just had a cigarette (Brendl et al., 2003; Sherman,
Rose, Koch, Presson, & Chassin, 2003). In the domain of alcohol use, Wiers and his
colleagues found that heavy drinkers demonstrated stronger alcohol-arousal associations
compared with light drinkers (Wiers, van de Luitgaarden, van den Wildenberg, & Smulders,
2005; Wiers, Van Woerden, Smulders, & De Jong, 2002). Other studies using modified
versions of the IAT showed that alcohol was associated with approach action tendencies in
Author Manuscript
heavy drinkers and that such action tendencies were significantly correlated with the urge to
drink as well as arousal reactivity in anticipation of alcohol consumption (Ostafin & Palfai,
2006; Palfai & Ostafin, 2003).
The principle of emotional transfer in the transition from casual drug use to addiction has
important theoretical implications. First, it is consonant with the previous approaches, which
emphasize the alterations of brain circuitry involved in incentive or reward processing as a
critical process in this transition, and it explains the psychological principle that may
accompany such alterations. These approaches distinguish between “wanting” and “liking”
Author Manuscript
and suggest that “liking” of drug use is not the driving force perpetuating drug-use behavior.
Our approach, conversely, suggests that it is the value that the behavior acquires
progressively (through emotional transfer) that may be a critical process underlying the
transition from casual drug use as a means to different goals to addiction, where drug use
becomes a desirable end state or a goal capable of driving behavior in itself. However, we
do not propose a hedonic approach. The value associated with drug use does not imply a
hedonic phenomenological experience associated with the behavior. Rather, it refers to the
potential positive consequences of the behavior or its incentive value. The individual does
not need to consciously “like” the drug. In fact, there is substantial recent evidence
suggesting that individuals may adopt and persist at an originally neutral behavior (e.g.,
solving anagrams) following a mere association (through unconscious affective
conditioning) of that behavior with positive affect. Furthermore, this happens without any
Author Manuscript
change in individuals’ conscious evaluation (or affective experience) of that behavior

(Custers & Aarts, 2005, 2010).
Second, the emotional transfer principle offers some explanations regarding the specificity
of the drugs and drug administration behaviors that were left unexplained by previous
approaches. Specifically, by explaining how a specific behavior related to a specific drug
(e.g., injecting heroin) transitions from a means to an end in itself by accruing affective
value, this approach offers some insights into how individuals became addicted to one
particular drug rather than a class of rewards and why the majority of them stick with one
particular substance and mode of administration rather than others.
Who is more vulnerable to addiction and why?—Given that only a small proportion
of individuals transition from casual to problematic substance use, there is substantial effort
Author Manuscript
to understand the biological, personality, and contextual variables that may enhance
individuals’ vulnerability to addiction (see Redish, Jensen, & Johnson, 2008, for an
extensive analysis, but also Flagel et al., 2011; Robinson & Berridge, 2003). The principle
of emotional transfer may also offer some insights into this issue and may explain previous
observations and findings.
As mentioned above, the emotional transfer principle suggests that behaviors (or means)
acquire affect or value in direct proportion to (a) the importance of the goal that they serve
and (b) the strength of the association between the behavior and the goal. Specifically, when
multiple (versus a single) means are available for goal attainment, the affective properties of
the goal (goal value) will spread to all means connected to the goal, resulting in a lower
amount of affect being transferred to each particular means. This suggests that individuals
Author Manuscript
who uniquely use drugs to fulfill some important goals (anxiety reduction, mood elevation,
performance enhancement, etc.) are more prone to become addicts than are individuals who
have at their disposal alternative ways of pursuing these goals and do not need to rely
exclusively on drugs for that purpose. In other words, the teenager for whom socializing and
being accepted by peers is a top priority and for whom alcohol and drugs are the only way
he could achieve this goal may be more vulnerable to develop pathologic substance use than
a counterpart for whom socializing may be equally important but for whom drinking is only
one way (means) of socializing in addition to playing sports or going to the movies with
friends. This is so simply because in the former case individuals have a stronger association
Author Manuscript
between using drugs and the motivation that this behavior fulfills, which facilitates the
transfer of affect and may increase the likelihood of the drug use becoming a motivational
force in itself. Conversely, when several means are perceived to be instrumental to the same
goal, the likelihood of one means becoming predominantly used and therefore highly valued
may decrease (Kruglanski, Pierro, & Sheveland, 2011). Indeed, previous research has
documented that social support and social relationships may be substitutable for smoking
and other addictive activities (DeGrandpre & Bickel, 1996; Fisher, 1996). Similarly,
decision making and behavioral economics models suggest that substance use is a function
of the availability of reinforcing alternatives (Green & Kagel, 1996; Rachlin, 1997; Redish,
2004). Our analysis takes a step forward and explains, based on the basic principles of self-
regulation, why this may be the case.
From a prevention point of view, then, the likelihood of casual substance use transitioning
Author Manuscript
into addiction could be reduced by diminishing the strength of the association between
substance use and the goal that it serves. One way of doing so could be by adding more
(substitutable) means to the goal. When the individual knows that he could hang out with
friends and family or go to the gym to release stress and to feel good, the likelihood of
alcohol becoming uniquely used as an emotional coping strategy and therefore becoming a
desirable end state in itself decreases. Again, several lines of research provide indirect
support for this notion. Across several studies, individuals who identify important life
pursuits (e.g., friends and family, love and intimacy), are optimistic about such pursuits, and
expect to draw satisfaction from them experience fewer drinking problems and are more
likely to recover from alcohol abuse than individuals who do not identify such alternative
pursuits (Cox & Klinger, 2002; Palfai & Weafer, 2006).
Author Manuscript
What perpetuates drug use? Automatic goal activation and pursuit

Accessibility of goals and goal-related information: Once goals have been adopted, they
are likely to become active spontaneously without the individual’s voluntary intention,
awareness, or conscious control. This is because, as cognitive constructs, goals obey the
principle of knowledge accessibility (P. G. Devine, 1989; Higgins & King, 1981; Higgins,
Rholes, & Jones, 1977; Taylor & Fiske, 1978). Just like other cognitive constructs, goals too
can be activated by aspects of the external environment or by people’s internal associations
(Aarts, Gollwitzer, & Hassin, 2004; Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee-Chai, Barndollar, & Trötschel,
2001; Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2003; Shah, 2003; Shah & Kruglanski, 2003; but see Fishbach &
Ferguson, 2007; Kruglanski & Köpetz, 2009a, 2009b, for reviews).
The active goal operates on relevant stimuli and events to produce goal-appropriate
Author Manuscript
outcomes (Ach, 1935; Bargh, 1997; Bruner, 1957; Gollwitzer, 1996; E. E. Jones & Thibaut,
1958; Kruglanski, 1996; Kuhl, 1986; McClelland & Atkinson, 1948). This notion has
received rigorous empirical support in various studies (Aarts et al., 2001; Balcetis &
Dunning, 2006; Ferguson & Bargh, 2004; Förster, Liberman, & Higgins, 2005; Moskowitz,
2002). Goals operate on any and all such relevant information: driving selective attention to
it when it is present (Chartrand & Bargh, 1996), causing differential evaluation of it as to
whether it facilitates or interferes with goal progress (Ferguson & Bargh, 2004),
transforming and manipulating the information in service of the goal (McCulloch, Ferguson,
Author Manuscript
Kawada, & Bargh, 2008), and guiding behavior toward the goal (Bargh et al., 2001) through
means selection and implementation. As Bargh and Huang (2009) put it, “the world is
filtered through the goal’s eyes” (p. 139). This was presumed to be possible because goal
constructs, as mental representations, contain information related not only to the desirability
of the end state but also to the behaviors, objects, and plans needed to attain it. Thus,
following goal activation, goal-related knowledge becomes more accessible and usable for
performance of actions felt to afford goal attainment. Such accessibility helps people to
recognize opportunities for goal satisfaction.
Consistent with these notions, addiction research has long documented the capacity of
contextual cues to evoke what is known as drug craving, that is, a strong desire or intense
longing for a drug (Bernheim & Rangel, 2004; Laibson, 2001; Marlatt & Gordon, 1985;
Stewart et al., 1984; Tiffany, 1990). As discussed in the previous section, it has been
Author Manuscript
suggested that anything processed during repeated drug-use episodes (e.g., perceived
affective outcomes, drug stimuli, and environmental cues) could establish and strengthen
such specific memory associations. These are often spontaneously activated and may govern
drug-consistent cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses (Baker et al., 2004; Robinson
& Berridge, 2004; Rooke, Hine, & Thorsteinsson, 2008; Stacy, 1997; Stacy, Ames, &
Grenard, 2006; Tiffany & Conklin, 2000).
Indeed, recent research using different paradigms has supported the idea that drug users
have heightened accessibility to drug-related cues, which constitutes a good predictor for
subsequent substance use. For instance, memory associations whereby participants are
instructed to respond to critical cue words, phrases, or pictures with the first response that
comes to mind were found to be better predictors of subsequent alcohol and marijuana use
Author Manuscript
than explicit outcome expectancies, sensation seeking, acculturation, and gender (Ames,
Sussman, Dent, & Stacy, 2005; Stacy, 1997). In the same vein, contextual priming, which
represents a more ecological activation of memory associations, has been found to have a
significant effect on the processing of drug-related information. For instance, opiate-
dependent participants were faster to respond to drug-related versus neutral words that
followed withdrawal-related sentences (Weinstein, Feldtkeller, Law, Myles, & Nutt, 2000).
Likewise, marijuana users reported stronger motivation to use marijuana and spent less time
reading drug prevention information after being subliminally primed with social cues (i.e.,
the name of individuals who use marijuana), especially when such cues represented close
social relationships (Leander, Shah, & Chartrand, 2009).
Similarly, research using a drug-specific Stroop task, a dot probe, and/or a visual probe or
Author Manuscript
flicker task has repeatedly shown that drug users are more cognitively distracted by drug-
related stimuli than by neutral stimuli and that such attentional bias plays an important role
in guiding subsequent substance use (Cox, Fadardi, & Pothos, 2006). For instance, smokers
have been found to exhibit greater smoking Stroop effects than never smokers or past
smokers (Munafo, Mogg, Roberts, Bradley, & Murphy, 2003). Moreover, smoking Stroop
effects have been found to correlate significantly with the number of cigarettes smoked per
day (Mogg & Bradley, 2002; Zack, Belsito, Scher, Eissenberg, & Corrigall, 2001) and short-
term cessation outcomes (Waters et al., 2003). Similar results have been reported for alcohol
abuse (see Bruce & Jones, 2006, for an extensive review). Other studies using the visual
Author Manuscript
focus localization paradigms have also reported that attentional bias for drug-related stimuli
correlates with self-reported drug use (Mogg, Bradley, Field, & De Houwer, 2003;
Townshend & Duka, 2001; Yaxley & Zwaan, 2005).
Consistent with the notion that active goals increase the accessibility of goal-relevant
information and prepare the organism for action, attentional bias toward drug-related stimuli
is assumed to exert important preconscious influences on behavior by increasing drug
craving and the tendency to direct approach behaviors toward drug-related cues (Field,
Mogg, & Bradley, 2006; Franken, 2003; Palfai & Ostafin, 2003).
Goals–means association: Once goals have been activated and adopted, a series of
regulatory processes is set in motion to initiate and maintain progress toward goal
attainment. That happens because goal representations include a variety of behaviors, plans,
Author Manuscript
and objects (means) that in the actor’s mind promise advancement toward one’s respective
goal. According to the interconnectedness principle, when the goal becomes salient, it will
automatically activate behavior representations and resultant action tendencies. For instance,
Aarts et al. (2001) manipulated participants’ thirst and showed a subsequent increase in the
accessibility of drinking-related objects. In this manner, a certain circumstance may become
capable of activating a representation of an outcome (goal), which will in turn activate the
behavior known to produce it. Such unique associations promote stable and repetitive
choices and behavior, as in the case where driving to work each morning (instead of taking
the bus or biking) may represent one’s attempt to maximize goal attainment by choosing the
means that has proven effective in the past.
Such processes may explain some of the most intriguing behaviors associated with drug use,
Author Manuscript
such as sex exchange for crack cocaine, which occurs frequently among female crack
cocaine users (Logan, Cole, & Leukefeld, 2003; Logan & Leukefeld, 2000), despite its
potential legal and health-compromising consequences. The problem, recognized by many,
is not that these women do not know or understand the risk but that they have difficulty
resisting such behavior when a crack cocaine craving is induced by contextual factors. This
may happen because females who engage in sex trade to satisfy their drug craving may form
cognitive representations where the goal of alleviating a drug craving is strongly associated
with sex trade as a means toward their goal. Hence, the experience of drug craving may
increase the accessibility of sex exchange as a means of drug obtainment and may result in
initiating this behavior without conscious intention and voluntary control.
In line with this reasoning, Köpetz, Pickover, Collado, Calvin, and Lejuez (2012)
investigated the automatic behavioral tendencies toward sex exchange as a means to obtain
Author Manuscript
crack cocaine among female crack cocaine users. Specifically, the researchers used a
joystick task paradigm to asses cocaine users’ automatic behavioral tendencies toward sex
trade words as a function of goal activation (i.e., cocaine primes), gender, and history of sex
exchange. In this paradigm, participants were subliminally presented with the word
“cocaine” (vs. neutral words). This procedure was intended to manipulate the accessibility
of the goal of drug obtainment by inducing a drug craving. The primes were immediately
followed by sex trade words (and other words irrelevant to sex exchange). Using a joystick,
participants were asked to “move” away from rather than toward the sex trade words. The
Author Manuscript
researchers reasoned that when the drug goal was active (after cocaine priming), women
with a history of sex exchange (who therefore may have developed a strong association
between the goal of obtaining crack cocaine and sex exchange as a means) should be faster
to initiate movement toward the sex trade targets than away from them. That is precisely
what happened. As additional support for the goals–means association, this effect was found
only following cocaine primes, not neutral primes, suggesting that approach tendencies
toward sex exchange are relevant only when the goal is active and not otherwise.
Furthermore, the effect was not obtained among women with no sex exchange history or
among men, presumably because for these participants, sex exchange did not represent an
instrumental means to drug obtainment.
The principles underlying goal activation and operation may explain many addicts’
difficulty in resisting the urge of drug use and their paradoxical willingness to engage in
Author Manuscript
self-destructive, even life-threatening behavior to obtain their drugs. This may well
exemplify that goals are “selfish”; they mobilize organisms to pursue their “agenda
autonomously even when doing so is not in the overall best interest of the individual”
(Bargh & Huang, 2009, p. 130). However, one may wonder how a single goal (e.g.,
obtaining and using drugs) out of the multitude of other goals that the individual
undoubtedly holds could take over and dominate the individual’s behavior to such an extent.
One possible answer is offered by the self-regulatory principles governing the relationship
between multiple goals given limited mental resources available for goal pursuit. This topic
is the focus of our next and last section.
How do drugs “take over” one’s behavior despite negative consequences and
individuals’ attempts to control their drug use?—One of the most daunting
Author Manuscript
problems related to substance abuse is that for some individuals it becomes the main
preoccupation, “taking over” other concerns vital for individual and social well-being. A
common explanation for this problem has been in terms of incentive sensitization coupled
with a deficit in the functioning of executive control (Everitt & Robbins, 2005; Robinson &
Berridge, 1993, 2003). Accordingly, addicts find it harder and harder to control their drug-
use behavior as it is automatically triggered by drug-related cues. It is unclear, however,
what exactly is the nature of these processes and how they operate to result in an
overdominance of substance use over other concerns. Is this a problem of lack of resources,
whereby addicts cannot exercise control over their substance use? Or does it reflect a
motivational weakness whereby the addict does not have a strong motivation or, in other
words, does not want to control his or her substance use? The principles that underlie
intergoal associations and govern the management of goal conflict may offer some insights
Author Manuscript
into such questions.
It has been long established that goal pursuit is resource dependent and that self-regulatory
resources may get momentarily depleted through acts of self-regulation. It follows that the
greater the investment in pursuing a given goal, the less resources should be available for
alternative goals or means (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Gailliot et al.,
2007; Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998; Vohs & Heatherton, 2000). To deal with the
limited resource pool, individuals learn to mobilize and allocate resources strategically, in
proportion to goal saliency and importance (see Kruglanski et al., 2012, for a review).
Author Manuscript
Although multiple goals may become simultaneously active, individuals shield currently
important goals from interference from rival alternatives through automatic inhibitory
connections (Köpetz, Faber, Fishbach, & Kruglanski, 2011; Shah, Friedman, & Kruglanski,
2002). For instance, due to intergoal inhibition, the more important the goal of eating
becomes (e.g., because of hunger), the less active and powerful a dieting concern is. As a
consequence, although the individual may be normally concerned with dieting, in the
moment, when eating becomes relatively more important, the individual “forgets” about
dieting and may be willing to consider “whatever” foods regardless of their caloric content
(Köpetz, Faber, et al., 2011). We believe that a similar dynamic may underlie addicts’
apparent “loss of control.”
In the context of an induced drug craving (through environmental and/or internal cues),
although the person may have other concerns related to safety, abstinence, and so on, the
Author Manuscript
momentarily heightened accessibility of the drug-use goal may draw attention to its
subjective value and may mobilize the resources necessary for goal pursuit, resulting in the
automatic inhibition of alternative concerns (Loewenstein, 1996, 2007). The psychological
salience of the proximal goal (drug seeking and use) in comparison with the distal and hence
pallid (albeit more significant) objective renders drug use so hard to resist.
Overriding the action tendencies triggered by the accessibility of the drug-use goal and
abstaining from drug use would require a considerable amount of resources. When the
resources are scarce (either chronically at the trait level or momentarily at the state level),
behavior becomes susceptible to the automatic tendencies triggered by environmental and
internal cues (Grenard et al., 2008; Hofmann, Gschwendner, Friese, Wiers, & Schmitt, 2008;
Mann & Ward, 2004, 2007; Ward & Mann, 2000). However, in the presence of sufficient
Author Manuscript
processing resources or salient alternative motivations, the individual may be able to assess
the relative value of drug use compared with its alternatives and might well refrain from
pursuit of the immediate goal despite the initial impulse.
It is noteworthy that the amount of resources available for goal pursuit (e.g., abstinence)
may fluctuate on a moment-to-moment basis as these resources get constantly depleted and
replenished (Gailliot et al., 2007). This dynamic nature of self-regulatory resources may
explain the fluctuations and inconsistencies often observed in addicts’ patterns of use. When
self-regulatory resources are plentiful, the individual may be able to quit smoking or using
drugs and may have extended periods of abstinence, despite environmental and internal cues
that may remind him or her of drug use and that may induce drug craving. However, when
self-regulatory resources get depleted (because of fatigue, stress, or other self-regulatory
Author Manuscript
attempts), the individual’s ability to maintain abstinence is substantially weakened. During

these “moments of weakness” (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996; Leander et al., 2009),
druguse behavior may be automatically triggered by drug-related cues, resulting in lapses
and even relapse.
Potential solutions
Reducing substance use by increasing processing resources: Recent evidence supports
the above notions and shows that increasing processing resources through working memory
training may increase heavy drug users’ capacity to resist the automatic “goal pull”
Author Manuscript
exercised by substance-related cues and may decrease substance use. This is particularly
relevant, as chronic drug users (compared with nonusers or casual users) often show
executive function deficits (e.g., Bolla et al., 2003; Fillmore, Vogel-Sprott, Wiers, & Stacy,
2006; Hester & Garavan, 2004; Kamarajan et al., 2005; Nöel, Bechara, Dan, Hanak, &
Verbanck, 2007; Rogers & Robbins, 2001). In one study (Houben, Wiers, & Jansen, 2011),
heavy drinkers were randomly assigned to take part in a working memory training program
over 25 sessions. The training did result in improved working memory capacity, which in
turn appeared to have decreased alcohol consumption by approximately 10 glasses per week
from pretest to posttest. Furthermore, this reduction was still evident 1 month later at follow-
up. What is more interesting for the current analysis is that such effects were stronger among
participants with strong automatic preferences for alcohol (as measured by the IAT). This
suggests that improving working memory (through training) may “replenish” substance
Author Manuscript
users’ self-regulatory resources (presumably affected by chronic use), which are necessary
to control automatic substance-use urges and tendencies.
The above analysis and empirical findings are consonant with previous approaches,
according to which maintenance of addictive behavior despite negative consequences may
be partly due to the executive functioning deficits often associated with chronic drug use
(e.g., Everitt & Robbins, 2005; Robinson & Berridge, 2003). However, these approaches
portrayed a rather rigid drug user engaged in persistent, out-of-control drug bingeing. They
do not account for the dynamic aspect of addictive behavior, which often consists of
episodes of bingeing and abstinence and involves inner conflicts arising from voluntary,
often unsuccessful attempts to control one’s behavior. The principle of limited regulatory
resources and its implications for intergoal associations (i.e., inhibition) may shed light into
such a dynamic and may explain when and why drug users are most vulnerable to relapse
Author Manuscript
but also what are the regulatory factors that may promote abstinence.
Reducing substance use by reducing the saliency of the drug-use goal: In addition to
increasing the resource pool, the overriding effect of the substance-use goal over other
concerns and consequently over one’s behavior may be reduced by decreasing the saliency
and value of the consumption goal. Indeed, issues of relative saliency and value of goals
involved in self-control circumstances similar to that of drug use have been emphasized in
researchers’ discussions of strategies of resisting immediate impulses. Several studies have
shown that individuals could resist the temptation of food, cigarettes, and alcohol when the
saliency and value of the consumption goal was reduced directly or through the introduction
of alternative goals.
Author Manuscript
For instance, people are better able to resist the temptation of fattening food or cigarettes
and to experience less craving when instructed to think abstractly about the tempting stimuli
(e.g., Fujita, Trope, Liberman, & Levin-Sagi, 2006; Kober, Kross, Mischel, Hart, &
Ochsner, 2010; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Such a strategy may presumably decrease the
emotional, “hot” aspect of the tempting stimuli, reducing the importance of the consuming
goal and increasing individuals’ capacity to abstain.
In a recent study, Wiers and colleagues (Wiers, Eberl, Rinck, Becker, & Lindenmeyer,
Author Manuscript
2011) incorporated a motivational retraining in the regular treatment administered to

alcoholic inpatients. Specifically, they used a joystick task and trained participants to make
an avoidance movement (by pushing the joystick away) from alcoholic beverage stimuli in
the experimental condition. In the control condition, participants were administered a sham
training where they both pushed and pulled alcohol-related pictures or received no training
at all (with no differences between these control conditions). The training is based on the
fundamental motivational assumption that individuals avoid (represented by pushing away
from oneself) undesirable outcomes and approach (representing by pulling toward oneself)
desirable outcomes (Chen & Bargh, 1999; Duckworth, Bargh, Garcia, & Chaiken, 2002;
Markman & Brendl, 2005; Solarz, 1960). The training was successful in reversing the
typical approach bias toward drug-related stimuli found in heavy drug users. Specifically,
following this short retraining treatment (compared with control conditions), individuals
Author Manuscript
showed a strong avoidance bias toward alcohol-related stimuli. Furthermore, participants in

the motivational retraining condition had significantly lower rates of relapse to alcohol use a
year posttreatment than their counterparts who received only the regular treatment. It is
possible that such motivational training might have reduced the subjective value of alcohol
and therefore restrained its motivational power, facilitating abstinence.
Indeed, in a similar study, Houben and colleagues (Houben, Nederkoorn, Wiers, & Jansen,
2011) obtained direct evidence in support of this notion. They showed that pairing drinking
cues (e.g., pictures of glasses of beer) with a no-go versus a go signal in a modified Go/No-
go paradigm resulted in a significant increase in heavy drinkers’ negative implicit attitudes
toward alcohol, coupled with a significant reduction in weekly alcohol intake.
Such studies are consistent with extensive empirical support suggesting that individuals who
Author Manuscript
are successful in regulating their immediate impulses and resisting temptations (e.g., food)
are ones who might have learned to automatically avoid the stimuli that represent such
temptations (Fishbach & Shah, 2006; Veling, Aarts, & Papies, 2011) while automatically
activating and approaching alternative goals (e.g., dieting; Fishbach, Friedman, &
Kruglanski, 2003).
Indeed, saying “no” to temptations, including substance use, may be easier if alternative
goals are brought to the forefront. Several studies have shown that alternative goals pull
resources away from each other and constrain behavior (Köpetz et al., 2011; Shah &
Kruglanski, 2002). In this vein, Papies, Stroebe, and Aarts (2007) found that for restrained
eaters, the biased attention to tasty food items prompted by food preexposure tended to
disappear after participants were reminded or primed with diet-related stimuli. Similarly,
Author Manuscript
reminding hungry participants of their dieting goal reduced the number of foods hungry
participants considered for lunch and resulted in a healthier choice of nonfattening, low-
caloric foods (Köpetz et al., 2011). In the realm of risk behavior relevant to drug use, recent
results from our lab showed that increasing the saliency and importance of the goal of being
“prudent” (though an affective conditioning procedure) resulted in less risk behavior
compared with decreasing the value of the goal of being “risky” (Lee, Köpetz, Calvin, &
Lejuez, 2010).
The above discussion suggests that the cognitive control deficits that may accompany
Author Manuscript
chronic drug use may be overcome either by enhancing the regulatory resources or by
training automatic tendencies incompatible with drug use. In both cases, substance use
appears to be substantially reduced. These behavioral findings are well in line with recent
neuroscience findings suggesting that goal pursuit (e.g., abstaining from drug use) is
maintained through a dynamic interplay between prefrontal cortex functions responsible for
maintaining the activation of relevant goal information while inhibiting irrelevant or
distracting information (Munakata et al., 2011).
The findings reviewed above suggest that drug-use behavior can be understood and
modified by the application of principles underlying goal-driven behavior in general. Indeed,
treatments that incorporate some of these principles have recently provided very
encouraging results in reducing drug treatment dropout and increasing the rates of
abstinence among drug users. For instance, behavioral activation approaches that aim to
Author Manuscript
activate individuals’ important goals and to increase their value by increasing individuals’
engagement in rewarding activities that support such goals (Jacobson et al., 1996; Lejuez,
Hopko, Acierno, Daughters, & Pagoto, 2011; Lejuez, Hopko, & Hopko, 2001; Lewinsohn,
1974) have been successful in increasing substance-use treatment retention (Magidson et al.,
2011), decreasing alcohol use among college students (Reynolds, MacPherson, Tull, Baruch,
& Lejuez, 2011), and increasing smoking abstinence over 6 months (MacPherson et al.,
2010). Furthermore, treatments designed to promote the use of healthier, nonsubstance-
related strategies (in other words, alternative means) to fulfill chronic motivations related to
substance use (e.g., sensation seeking) may lead to reductions in motivation to drink alcohol
or use illicit drugs (Conrod, Castellanos-Ryan, & Mackie, 2011).
So What Is So Special About Drugs? Conclusions and Prospects

Author Manuscript
Our previous sections emphasized the commonalities between drug use and motivated
behavior in general. Our article attempted to sketch a framework that would afford an
integrative treatment of previous perspectives in addiction and basic self-regulation research.
On the basis of both neuroscience and behavioral evidence, we proposed that substance
abuse and addictive behaviors are motivated behaviors. We argued that approaching drug
use as a special instance of motivated behavior governed by the general principles of
dynamic human action may offer important insights into addictive behavior and may answer
some questions refractory to elucidation from alternative perspectives. We discussed some
of these principles suggested by our conceptual framework along with the empirical
evidence that supports them and outlined their relevance for addiction. Specifically, we
discussed how the principles of emotional transfer, accessibility, interconnectedness, and
Author Manuscript
limited resources that govern general goal adoption, activation, and pursuit may offer
additional insights into transitioning from casual drug use to addiction, vulnerability to and
maintenance of addictive behavior despite negative consequences, and individuals’
voluntary attempts to control their substance use.
Admittedly, underplaying the unique aspects of substance use and arguing that there is
actually nothing special about addiction would be as naive as saying that addiction is a
thoroughly unique phenomenon. After all, it does seem to be the case that people “prefer
opium to broccoli” (Hyman, 1994). Compared with the majority of motivated behaviors,
Author Manuscript
substance use does represent a significant public health problem, and one may wonder why
that would be. Alcohol, nicotine, and other drugs have direct pharmacological effects that
are powerful and unique. The subjective experience associated with drug use is one of
euphoria, of “feeling good.” Such experience undoubtedly accompanies other motivated
behaviors. However, the strength and immediacy of drug effects are unparalleled by the
affective experiences associated with more pedestrian goal pursuit. Whereas the positive
affective experience of jogging (or eating broccoli for that matter), for instance, emerges
slowly, with time and effort, the effects of drugs are immediate and strong. This may have at
least two important consequences. On the one hand, the immediate positive aftermath of
drug use (due to its pharmacological effects) may indicate the instrumentality of the
behavior to the goal that it serves, and it may strengthen the association between them.
Consequently, drug use may become positively valued (through transfer of affect) and may
Author Manuscript
gain motivational properties (to drive drug seeking and use behavior) more quickly and
effectively than other behaviors. On the other hand, perceived instrumentality of drug use
may facilitate its automatic enactment upon the activation of the goal at the expense of
alternative behaviors or means that may not be perceived as instrumental.
Although development and maintenance of drug addiction may indeed follow the principles
of motivated behavior discussed above, the pharmacological properties of the drugs
contribute to facilitate these processes to a great extent. Furthermore, the pharmacological
properties of drugs may also explain different patterns of drug taking depending on the drug
and its effects, as well as individuals’ vulnerability to addiction to certain drugs depending
on genetic and personality predispositions (Lejuez, Bornovalova, Daughters, & Curtin,
2005).
Author Manuscript
So drugs do have unique effects, at least in terms of immediacy and intensity. Are these
effects qualitatively different than the subjective experience associated with other motivated
behaviors? We do not know yet. But what we do know is that aside from these unique
pharmacological effects, addiction is in many ways psychologically similar to motivated
behavior in general, whereas in some rare and extreme cases it appears more like a “brain
disease.” This suggests a continuum from normal to pathological, with more research
required to determine what delineates one from the other.
The focus of this article was not to provide a definitive answer to the challenges that we face
in understanding, preventing, and treating addiction. Rather, it attempted to identify
convergence points between traditional and basic self-regulation perspectives on addiction
and to advocate for an approach that emphasizes commonalities between addiction and
Author Manuscript
motivated behavior while recognizing the uniqueness of drug use. We believe that it is this
coexistence, which acknowledges the value of the conceptual and methodological
advancements in each relevant field and attempts to integrate them, that will promote
scientific understanding and more effective prevention and treatment of addiction.
Acknowledgments
Funding
This research was supported by National Institute of Drug Abuse Grants F32 DA026253 awarded to Cătălina E.
Köpetz and R01 DA19405 awarded to Carl W. Lejuez.
Author Manuscript
References
Aarts H, Dijksterhuis A. Habits as knowledge structures: Automaticity in goal directed behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000; 78:53–63. [PubMed: 10653505]
Aarts H, Dijksterhuis A, De Vries P. On the psychology of drinking: Being thirsty and perceptually
ready. British Journal of Psychology. 2001; 92:631–642. [PubMed: 11762865]
Aarts H, Gollwitzer PM, Hassin RR. Goal contagion: Perceiving is for pursuing. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 2004; 87:23–37. [PubMed: 15250790]
Aarts H, Verplanken B, van Knippenberg A. Predicting behavior from actions in the past: Repeated
decision making or a matter of habit? Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1998; 28:1355–1374.
Ach, NN. Analyse des Willens [Analysis of the will]. In: Abderhalden, E., editor. Handbuch Der
Biologischen Arbeitsmethoden. Vol. 6. Berlin, Germany: Urban & Schwar-zenberg; 1935. Part E
Addiction. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. 11th ed.Retrieved from http://www.merriam-
Author Manuscript
webster.com/dictionary/addiction
Ainslie, G. Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the
person. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
Ainslie, G. The intuitive explanation of passionate mistakes and why it’s not adequate. In: Elster, J.;
Elster, J., editors. Addiction: Entries and exits. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 1999. p.
209-238.
Allport GW. The functional autonomy of motives. The American Journal of Psychology. 1937;
50:141–156.
Ames SL, Sussman S, Dent CW, Stacy AW. Implicit cognition and dissociative experiences as
predictors of adolescent substance use. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 2005;
31:129–162. [PubMed: 15768575]
Anderson JR. Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology.
1974; 6:451–474.
Anderson, JR. The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1983.
Author Manuscript
Atkinson, JW.; Birch, D. The dynamics of action. Oxford, UK: John Wiley; 1970.
Baker, TB.; Morse, E.; Sherman, JE. The motivation to use drugs: A psychobiological analysis of
urges. In: Rivers, PC., editor. The Nebraska symposium on motivation: Alcohol use and abuse.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press; 1987. p. 257-323.
Baker TB, Piper ME, McCarthy DE, Majeskie MR, Fiore MC. Addiction motivation reformulated: An
affective processing model of negative reinforcement. Psychological Review. 2004; 111:33–51.
[PubMed: 14756584]
Balcetis E, Dunning D. See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception.
Bardo, MT.; Dwoskin, LP. Biological connection between novelty- and drug-seeking motivational
systems. In: Bevins, RA.; Bardo, MT., editors. The Nebraska symposium on motivation:
Motivational factors in the etiology of drug abuse. Vol. 50. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press;
2004. p. 127-158.
Bargh, JA. Auto-motives: Preconscious determinants of social interaction. In: Higgins, ET.;
Sorrentino, RM., editors. Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior.
Author Manuscript
Vol. 2. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1990. p. 93-130.

Bargh, JA. The automaticity of everyday life. In: Wyer, RR., editor. The automaticity of everyday life:
Advances in social cognition. Vol. 10. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1997. p. 1-61.
Bargh JA, Gollwitzer PM, Lee-Chai A, Barndollar K, Trötschel R. The automated will: Nonconscious
activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;
81:1014–1027. [PubMed: 11761304]
Bargh, JA.; Huang, JY. The selfish goal. In: Moskowitz, GB.; Grant, H., editors. The psychology of
goals. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2009. p. 127-150.
Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Muraven M, Tice DM. Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited
resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998; 74:1252–1265. [PubMed: 9599441]
Author Manuscript
Baumeister RF, Heatherton TF. Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry. 1996;
7:1–15.
Baumeister RF, Vohs KD. Narcissism as addiction to esteem. Psychological Inquiry. 2001; 12:206–
210.
Becker G. Habits, addictions, and traditions. Kyklos. 1992; 4:327–346.
Becker G, Murphy KM. A theory of rational addiction. Journal of Political Economy. 1988; 96:675–
700.
Becker MH, Drachman RH, Kirscht JP. A new approach to explaining sick role behavior in low-
income populations. American Journal of Public Health. 1974; 64:205–216. [PubMed: 4811762]
Bernheim BD, Rangel A. Addiction and cue-triggered decision processes. American Economic
Review. 2004; 94:1558–1590.
Bevins, RA.; Bardo, MT. Introduction: Motivation, drug abuse, and 50 years of theoretical and
empirical inquiry. In: Bevins, RA.; Bardo, MT., editors. The Nebraska symposium on motivation:
Motivational factors in the etiology of drug abuse. Vol. 50. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press;
Author Manuscript
2004. p. x-xv.
Bindra D. A motivational view of learning, performance, and behavior modification. Psychological
Review. 1974; 81:199–213. [PubMed: 4424766]
Bogen E. The composition of cigarettes and cigarette smoke. Journal of the American Medical
Association. 1929; 93:1110–1114.
Bolla KI, Eldreth DA, London ED, Kiehl KA, Mouratidis M, Contoreggi C, Ernst M. Orbitofrontal
cortex dysfunction in abstinent cocaine abusers performing a decision-making task. NeuroImage.
2003; 19:1085–1094. [PubMed: 12880834]
Bolles RC. Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning. Psychological Review. 1972; 79:394–409.
Brandt, AM. The cigarette century: The rise, fall, and deadly persistence of the product that defined
America. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2007.
Brendl, C.; Higgins, E. Principles of judging valence: What makes events positive or negative?. In:
Zanna, MP., editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 28. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press; 1996. p. 95-160.
Author Manuscript
Brendl C, Markman AB, Messner C. The devaluation effect: Activating a need devalues unrelated
objects. Journal of Consumer Research. 2003; 29:463–473.
Bruce, G.; Jones, BT. Methods, measures, and findings of attentional bias in substance use, abuse, and
dependence. In: Wiers, RW.; Stacy, AW., editors. Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2006. p. 135-149.
Bruner JS. On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review. 1957; 64:123–152. [PubMed: 13420288]
Bushman BJ, Baumeister RF. Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced
aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 1998; 75:219–229. [PubMed: 9686460]
Campbell, ND. Multiple paths to partial truths: A history of drug use etiology. In: Scheier, L., editor.
Handbook of drug use etiology: Theory, methods, and empirical findings. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association; 2010. p. 29-50.
Campbell W. Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999;
77:1254–1270.
Author Manuscript
Campbell W, Rudich EA, Sedikides C. Narcissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two
portraits of self-love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2002; 28:358–368.
Cardinal RN, Parkinson JA, Hall J, Everitt BJ. Emotion and motivation: The role of the amygdala,
ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2002; 26:321–
352. [PubMed: 12034134]
Carver CS, Scheier MF. The self-attention-induced feedback loop and social facilitation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology. 1981; 17:545–568.
Carver, CS.; Scheier, MF. On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press; 1998.
Carver, CS.; Scheier, MF. Self-regulation of action and affect. In: Vohs, KD.; Baumeister, RF.,
editors. Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. 2nd ed.. New York, NY:
Author Manuscript
Guilford Press; 2011. p. 3-21.

Changizi MA, McGehee RMF, Hall WG. Evidence that appetitive responses for dehydration and food-
deprivation are learned. Physiology & Behavior. 2002; 75:295–304. [PubMed: 11897255]
Chartrand TL, Bargh JA. Automatic activation of impression formation and memorization goals:
Nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects of explicit task instructions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 1996; 71:464–478.
Chein, I.; Gerard, D.; Lee, R.; Rosenfeld, E. The road to heroin. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1964.
Chen M, Bargh JA. Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to
approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1999; 25:215–224.
Conrod PJ, Castellanos-Ryan N, Mackie C. Long-term effects of a personality-targeted intervention to
reduce alcohol use in adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2011; 79:296–
306. [PubMed: 21500886]
Cooper ML. Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-
factor model. Psychological Assessment. 1994; 6:117–128.
Author Manuscript
Cooper ML, Frone MR, Russell M, Mudar P. Drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions: A
motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995; 69:990–
1005. [PubMed: 7473043]
Cox WM, Fadardi J, Pothos EM. The Addiction-Stroop test: Theoretical considerations and procedural
recommendations. Psychological Bulletin. 2006; 132:443–476. [PubMed: 16719569]
Cox WM, Klinger E. A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1988;
97:168–180. [PubMed: 3290306]
Cox, WM.; Klinger, E. Incentive motivation, affective change, and alcohol use: A model. In: Cox,
WM., editor. Why people drink: Parameters of alcohol as a reinforcer. New York, NY: Gardner
Press; 1990. p. 291-314.
Cox WM, Klinger E. Motivational structure: Relationships with substance use and processes of
change. Addictive Behaviors. 2002; 27:925–940. [PubMed: 12369476]
Cox, WM.; Klinger, E. A motivational model of alcohol use: Determinants of use and change. In: Cox,
WM.; Klinger, E., editors. Handbook of motivational counseling: Concepts, approaches, and
Author Manuscript
assessment. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2004. p. 121-138.
Custers R, Aarts H. Positive affect as implicit motivator: On the nonconscious operation of behavioral
goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005; 89:129–142. [PubMed: 16162049]
Custers R, Aarts H. The unconscious will: How the pursuit of goals operates outside of conscious
awareness. Science. 2010; 329:47–50. [PubMed: 20595607]
Dabbs, JR.; Bassett, JF.; Brower, AM.; Cate, KL.; DeSantis, JE.; Leander, NP. A portable version of
the Go/No-Go Association Task (GNAT); Poster presented at the 15th annual convention of the
American Psychological Society; Atlanta, GA. 2003 May.
DeGrandpre, RJ.; Bickel, WK. Drug dependence as consumer demand. In: Green, L.; Kagel, JH.,
editors. Advances in behavioral economics: Substance use and abuse. Vol. 3. Westport. CT:
Ablex; 1996. p. 1-36.
De Micheli D, Formigoni MLOS. Are reasons for the first use of drugs and family circumstances
predictors of future use patterns? Addictive Behaviors. 2002; 27:87–100. [PubMed: 11806402]
Deneau G, Yanagita T, Seevers MH. Self-administration of psychoactive substances by the monkey.
Psychopharmacology. 1969; 16:30–48.
Author Manuscript
Devine DP, Leone P, Pocock D, Wise RA. Differential involvement of ventral tegmental area mu,
delta and kappa opioid receptors in modulation of basal mesolimbic dopamine release: In vivo
microdialysis studies. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 1993; 266:1236–
1246. [PubMed: 7690399]
Devine DP, Wise RA. Self-administration of morphine, DAMGO, and DPDPE into the ventral
tegmental area of rats. Journal of Neuroscience. 1994; 14:1978–1984. [PubMed: 8158252]
Devine PG. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 1989; 56:5–18.
Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HL. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress.
Psychological Bulletin. 1999; 125:276–302.
Author Manuscript
DiFranza JR, Savageau JA, Fletcher K, Ockene JK, Rigotti NA, McNeill AD, Wood C. Measuring the
loss of autonomy over nicotine use in adolescents: The DANDY (Development and Assessment of
Nicotine Dependence in Youths) study. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2002;
156:397–403. [PubMed: 11929376]
Duckworth KL, Bargh JA, Garcia M, Chaiken S. The automatic evaluation of novel stimuli.
Psychological Science. 2002; 13:513–519. [PubMed: 12430834]
Ettenberg A, Camp CH. Haloperidol induces a partial reinforcement extinction effect in rats:
Implications for a dopamine involvement in food reward. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and
Behavior. 1986; 25:813–821.
Everitt BJ, Robbins TW. Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: From actions to habits to
compulsion. Nature Neuroscience. 2005; 8:1481–1489.
Fallon AE, Rozin P. The psychological bases of food rejections by humans. Ecology of Food and
Nutrition. 1983; 13:15–26.
Ferguson MJ, Bargh JA. Liking is for doing: The effects of goal pursuit on automatic evaluation.
Author Manuscript

Field M, Mogg K, Bradley BP. Automaticity of smoking behavior: The relationship between dual-task
performance, daily cigarette intake and subjective nicotine effects. Journal of
Psychopharmacology. 2006; 20:799–805. [PubMed: 16533863]
Fillmore, MT.; Vogel-Sprott, M.; Wiers, RW.; Stacy, AW. Acute effects of alcohol and other drugs on
automatic and intentional control. In: Wiers, RWHJ.; Stacy, AW., editors. Handbook of implicit
cognition and addiction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2006. p. 293-306.
Fishbach, A.; Ferguson, MF. The goal construct in social psychology. In: Kruglanski, AW.; Higgins,
ET., editors. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York, NY: Guilford Press;
2007. p. 490-515.
Fishbach A, Friedman RS, Kruglanski AW. Leading us not into temptation: Momentary allurements
elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 84:296–309.
[PubMed: 12585805]
Fishbach A, Shah JY. Self-control in action: Implicit dispositions toward goals and away from
Author Manuscript
temptations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006; 90:820–832. [PubMed:

16737375]
Fishbach A, Shah JY, Kruglanski AW. Emotional transfer in goal systems. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology. 2004; 40:723–738.
Fisher, EB, Jr. A behavioral-economic perspective on the influence of social support on cigarette
smoking. In: Green, L.; Kagel, JH., editors. Advances in behavioral economics: Substance use and
abuse. Vol. 3. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1996. p. 207-236.
Fitzsimons GM, Bargh JA. Thinking of you: Non-conscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associated
with relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 84:148–163.
[PubMed: 12518976]
Flagel SB, Clark JJ, Robinson TE, Mayo L, Czuj A, Willuhn I, Akil H. A selective role for dopamine
in stimulus-reward learning. Nature. 2011; 469:53–57. [PubMed: 21150898]
Flay, BR.; Petraitis, J. The theory of triadic influence: A new theory of health behavior with
implications for preventive interventions. In: Albrecht, GS., editor. Advances in medical
sociology: A reconsideration of models of health behavior change. Vol. 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Author Manuscript
Press; 1994. p. 37-57.

Förster J, Liberman N, Higgins ET. Accessibility from active and fulfilled goals. Journal of
Franken IA. Drug craving and addiction: Integrating psychological and neuropsychopharmacological
approaches. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry. 2003; 27:563–579.
[PubMed: 12787841]
Fujita K, Trope Y, Liberman N, Levin-Sagi M. Construal levels and self-control. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 2006; 90:351–367. [PubMed: 16594824]
Gahlinger, P. Illegal drugs: A complete guide to their history, chemistry, use, and abuse. New York,
NY: Plume; 2004.
Author Manuscript
Gailliot MT, Baumeister RF, DeWall CN, Maner JK, Plant EA, Tice DM. Self-control relies on
glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 2007; 92:325–336. [PubMed: 17279852]
Glickman SE, Schiff BB. A biological theory of reinforcement. Psychological Review. 1967; 74:81–
109. [PubMed: 5342347]
Gollwitzer, PM. The volitional benefits of planning. In: Gollwitzer, PM.; Bargh, JA., editors. The
psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior. New York, NY: Guilford
Press; 1996. p. 287-312.
Gollwitzer, PM.; Moskowitz, GB. Goal effects on action and cognition. In: Higgins, ET.; Kruglanski,
AW., editors. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York, NY: Guilford Press;
1996. p. 361-399.
Green, L.; Kagel, J., editors. Advances in behavioral economics: Substance use and abuse. Vol. 3.
Westport. CT: Ablex; 1996.
Grenard JL, Ames SL, Wiers RW, Thush C, Sussman S, Stacy AW. Working memory capacity
Author Manuscript
moderates the predictive effects of drug-related associations on substance use. Psychology of

Addictive Behaviors. 2008; 22:426–432. [PubMed: 18778136]
Heckhausen H. Motivation: Cognitive-psychological cleaving of a summary construct. Psychologische
Rundschau. 1977; 28:175–189.
Heckhausen, H.; Kuhl, J. From wishes to action: The dead ends and short cuts on the long way to
action. In: Frese, M.; Sabini, J., editors. Goal directed behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1985. p.
78-94.
Hester R, Garavan H. Executive dysfunction in cocaine addiction: Evidence for discordant frontal,
cingulate, and cere-bellar activity. Journal of Neuroscience. 2004; 24:11017–11022. [PubMed:
15590917]
Heyman, GM. Addiction: A disorder of choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2009.
Higgins, ET. Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In: Higgins, ET.;
Kruglanski, AW., editors. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York, NY:
Guilford Press; 1996. p. 133-168.
Author Manuscript
Higgins, ET.; King, G. Accessibility of social constructs: Information processing consequences of

individual and contextual variability. In: Cantor, N.; Kihlstrom, J., editors. Personality, cognition,
and social interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1981. p. 69-121.
Higgins ET, Rholes WS, Jones CR. Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of
Hofmann W, Gschwendner T, Friese M, Wiers RW, Schmitt M. Working memory capacity and self-
regulatory behavior: Toward an individual differences perspective on behavior determination by
automatic versus controlled processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008;
95:962–977. [PubMed: 18808271]
Holden C. “Behavioral” addictions: Do they exist? Science. 2001; 294:980–982. [PubMed: 11691967]
Houben K, Nederkoorn C, Wiers RW, Jansen A. Resisting temptation: Decreasing alcohol-related
affect and drinking behavior by training response inhibition. Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
2011; 116:132–136. [PubMed: 21288663]
Houben K, Wiers RW. Implicitly positive about alcohol? Implicit positive associations predict
drinking behavior. Addictive Behaviors. 2008; 33:979–986. [PubMed: 18434034]
Author Manuscript
Houben K, Wiers RW, Jansen A. Getting a grip on drinking behavior: Training working memory to
reduce alcohol abuse. Psychological Science. 2011; 22:968–975. [PubMed: 21685380]
Houben, K.; Wiers, RW.; Roefs, A. Reaction time measures of substance-related associations. In:
Wiers, RW.; Stacy, AW., editors. Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE; 2006. p. 91-104.
Hyman SE. Why does the brain prefer opium to broccoli? Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 1994; 2:43–
46. [PubMed: 9384879]
Hyman SE, Malenka RC, Nestler EJ. Neural mechanisms of addiction: The role of reward-related
learning and memory. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 2006; 29:565–598.
Jacobson NS, Dobson KS, Truax PA, Addis ME, Koerner K, Gollan JK, Prince SE. A component
analysis of cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Author Manuscript
Psychology. 1996; 64:295–304. [PubMed: 8871414]

Jentsch JD, Taylor JR. Impulsivity resulting from frontostriatal dysfunction in drug abuse: implications
for the control of behavior by reward-related stimuli. Psychopharmacology. 1999; 146:373–390.
[PubMed: 10550488]
Jessor, R.; Jessor, SL. Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth.
New York, NY: Academic Press; 1977.
Jones BT, Corbin W, Fromme K. A review of expectancy theory and alcohol consumption. Addiction.
2001; 96:57–72. [PubMed: 11177520]
Jones, EE.; Thibaut, JW. Interaction goals as bases of inference in interpersonal perception. In:
Tagiuri, R.; Petrullo, L., editors. Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University Press; 1958. p. 161-178.
Jones, RT. Human effects: An overview. In: Peterson, RC., editor. Marijuana research findings.
Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1980. p. 54-80.
Kamarajan C, Porjesz B, Jones KA, Choi K, Chorlian DB, Padmanabhapillai A, Begleiter H.
Author Manuscript
Alcoholism is a disinhibitory disorder: Neurophysiological evidence from a Go/No-Go task.

Biological Psychology. 2005; 69:353–373. [PubMed: 15925035]
Kandel D. Stages in adolescent involvement in drug use. Science. 1975; 190:912–914. [PubMed:
1188374]
Kandel, DB.; Jessor, R. The gateway hypothesis revisited. In: Kandel, DB., editor. Stages and
pathways of drug involvement: Examining the gateway hypothesis. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press; 2002. p. 365-372.
Kasser T, Ryan RM. A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central
life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993; 65:410–422. [PubMed:
8366427]
Klinger E. Consequences of commitment to and disengagement from incentives. Psychological
Review. 1975; 82:1–25.
Klinger, E. Meaning and void: Inner experience and the incentives in people’s lives. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press; 1977.
Author Manuscript
Knee C, Neighbors C. Self-determination, perception of peer pressure, and drinking among college
students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2002; 32:522–543.
Kober H, Kross EF, Mischel W, Hart CL, Ochsner KN. Regulation of craving by cognitive strategies
in cigarette smokers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2010; 106:52–55. [PubMed: 19748191]
Koob GF, Le Moal M. Drug addiction, dysregulation of reward, and allostasis.
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001; 24:97–129. [PubMed: 11120394]
Koob GF, Le Moal M. Addiction and the brain antireward system. Annual Review of Psychology.
2008; 59:29–53.
Koob GF, Volkow ND. Neurocircuitry of addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010; 35:217–238.
[PubMed: 19710631]
Köpetz C, Faber T, Fishbach A, Kruglanski AW. The multifinality constraints effect: How goal
multiplicity narrows the means set to a focal end. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
2011; 100:810–826. [PubMed: 21381854]
Köpetz C, Pickover A, Collado AC, Calvin N, Lejuez CW. When the end justifies (extreme) means:
Automatic approach tendencies of sex-trade as means to drug obtainment. 2012 Unpublished
Author Manuscript
manuscript.
Kruglanski, AW. Goals as knowledge structures. In: Gollwitzer, PM.; Bargh, JA., editors. The
psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior. New York, NY: Guilford
Press; 1996. p. 599-618.
Kruglanski AW, Belanger JJ, Chen X, Köpetz C, Pierro A, Mannetti L. The energetics of motivated
cognition: A force-field analysis. Psychological Review. 2012; 119:1–20. [PubMed: 21967165]
Kruglanski, AW.; Köpetz, C. The role of goal systems in self-regulation. In: Morsella, E.; Bargh, JA.;
Gollwitzer, PM., editors. Oxford handbook of human action. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press; 2009a. p. 350-367.
Kruglanski, AW.; Köpetz, C. What is so special (and nonspecial) about goals? A view from the
cognitive perspective. In: Moskowitz, GB.; Grant, H., editors. The psychology of goals. New
Author Manuscript
York, NY: Guilford Press; 2009b. p. 27-55.

Kruglanski AW, Pierro A, Sheveland A. How many roads lead to Rome? Equifinality set-size and
commitment to goals and means. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2011; 41:344–352.
Kruglanski AW, Shah JY, Fishbach A, Friedman R, Chun WY, Sleeth-Keppler D. A theory of goal
systems. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2002; 34:331–378.
Kuhl, J. Motivation and information processing: A new look at decision making, dynamic change, and
action control. In: Sorrentino, RM.; Higgins, ET., editors. Handbook of motivation and
cognition: Foundations of social behavior. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1986. p. 404-434.
Kuntsche E, Knibbe R, Gmel G, Engels R. Why do young people drink? A review of drinking motives.
Clinical Psychology Review. 2005; 25:841–861. [PubMed: 16095785]
Laibson D. A cue theory of consumption. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2001; 66:81–120.
Leander N, Shah JY, Chartrand TL. Moments of weakness: The implicit context dependencies of
temptations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2009; 35:853–866. [PubMed:
19386767]
Author Manuscript
Lee, A.; Köpetz, C.; Calvin, N.; Lejuez, CW. The role of goal saliency and goal importance in risk
taking; Poster presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the College for Problems on Drug
Dependence; Scottsdale, AZ. Jun. 2010
Lejuez CW, Bornovalova MA, Daughters SB, Curtin JJ. Differences in impulsivity and sexual risk
behavior among inner-city crack/cocaine users and heroin users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
2005; 77:169–175. [PubMed: 15664718]
Lejuez CW, Hopko DR, Acierno R, Daughters SB, Pagoto SL. Ten year revision of the brief
behavioral activation treatment for depression: Revised treatment manual. Behavior
Modification. 2011; 35:111–161. [PubMed: 21324944]
Lejuez CW, Hopko DR, Hopko SD. A brief behavioral activation treatment for depression: Treatment
manual. Behavior Modification. 2001; 25:255–286. [PubMed: 11317637]
Leshner AI. Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science. 1997; 278:45–47. [PubMed:
9311924]
Lewin, KK. A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1935.
Author Manuscript
Lewinsohn, PM. A behavioral approach to depression. In: Friedman, RJ.; Katz, MM., editors. The
psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research. Oxford, England: John Wiley &
Sons; 1974. p. 157-185.
Lewis, M. Shame: The exposed self. New York, NY: Free Press; 1992.
Lindesmith, AR.; Gagnon, J. Anomie and drug addiction. In: Clinard, MB., editor. Anomie and
deviant behavior. New York, NY: Free Press; 1964. p. 158-188.
Loewenstein G. Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes. 1996; 65:272–292.
Loewenstein, G. Exotic preferences: Behavioral economics and human motivation. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press; 2007.
Logan TK, Cole J, Leukefeld C. Gender differences in the context of sex exchange among individuals
with a history of crack use. AIDS Education and Prevention. 2003; 15:448–464. [PubMed:
14626466]
Logan TK, Leukefeld C. HIV risk behavior among bisexual and heterosexual drug users. Journal of
Author Manuscript
Psychoactive Drugs. 2000; 32:239–248. [PubMed: 11061674]

MacPherson L, Tull MT, Matusiewicz AK, Rodman S, Strong DR, Kahler CW, Lejuez CW.
Randomized controlled trial of behavioral activation smoking cessation treatment for smokers
with elevated depressive symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2010;
78:55–61. [PubMed: 20099950]
Magidson JF, Gorka SM, MacPherson L, Hopko DR, Blanco C, Lejuez CW, Daughters SB.
Examining the effect of the Life Enhancement Treatment for Substance Use (LETS ACT) on
residential substance abuse treatment retention. Addictive Behaviors. 2011; 36:615–623.
[PubMed: 21310539]
Mann T, Ward A. To eat or not to eat: Implications of the attentional myopia model for restrained
eaters. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2004; 113:90–98. [PubMed: 14992661]
Author Manuscript
Mann T, Ward A. Attention, self-control, and health behaviors. Current Directions in Psychological
Science. 2007; 16:280–283.
Markman, AB.; Brendl, C. Goals, policies, preferences, and actions. In: Kardes, FR.; Herr, PM.;
Nantel, J., editors. Applying social cognition to consumer-focused strategy. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum; 2005. p. 183-199.
Markman AB, Brendl C, Kim K. Preference and the specificity of goals. Emotion. 2007; 7:680–684.
[PubMed: 17683224]
Marlatt, GA.; Gordon, JR., editors. Relapse Prevention: Maintenance strategies in the treatment of
addictive behaviors. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1985.
McClelland DC, Atkinson JW. The projective expression of needs: I. The effect of different intensities
of the hunger drive on perception. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied. 1948;
25:205–222. [PubMed: 18907279]
McCulloch KC, Ferguson MJ, Kawada CCK, Bargh JA. Taking a closer look: On the operation of
nonconscious impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2008; 44:614–
Author Manuscript
623. [PubMed: 18552986]

Mello NK, Mendelson JH. Operant analysis of drinking habits of chronic alcoholics. Nature. 1965;
206:43–46. [PubMed: 14334359]
Metcalfe J, Mischel W. A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower.
Psychological Review. 1999; 106:3–19. [PubMed: 10197361]
Mogg K, Bradley BP. Selective processing of smoking-related cues in smokers: Manipulation of
deprivation level and comparison of three measures of processing bias. Journal of
Mogg K, Bradley BP, Field M, De Houwer J. Eye movements to smoking related pictures in smokers:
Relationship between attentional biases and implicit and explicit measures of stimulus valence.
Addiction. 2003; 98:825–836. [PubMed: 12780371]
Moore M, Weiss S. Reasons for non-drinking among Israeli adolescents of four religions. Drug and
Alcohol Dependence. 1995; 38:45–50. [PubMed: 7648996]
Morf CC, Rhodewalt F. Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self- regulatory
Author Manuscript
processing model. Psychological Inquiry. 2001; 12:177–196.

Moskowitz GB. Preconscious effects of temporary goals on attention. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology. 2002; 38:397–404.
Munafo M, Mogg K, Roberts S, Bradley BP, Murphy M. Selective processing of smoking-related cues
in current smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers on the modified Stroop task. Journal of
Munakata Y, Herd SA, Chatham CH, Depue BE, Banich MT, O’Reilly RC. A unified framework for
inhibitory control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2011; 15:453–459. [PubMed: 21889391]
Muraven M, Tice DM, Baumeister RE. Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion
patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998; 74:774–789. [PubMed: 9523419]
National Institute on Drug Abuse. Drug abuse is costly. 2012a. Retrieved from http://
archives.drugabuse.gov/about/welcome/aboutdrugabuse/magnitude/
National Institute on Drug Abuse. Drugs, brain, and behavior: The science of addiction. 2012b.
Retrieved from http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/science-addiction
Author Manuscript
Nöel X, Bechara A, Dan B, Hanak C, Verbanck P. Response inhibition deficit is involved in poor
decision making under risk in nonamnesic individuals with alcoholism. Neuropsychology. 2007;
21:778–786. [PubMed: 17983291]
O’Brien CP. Experimental analysis of conditioning factors in human narcotic addiction.
Pharmacological Review. 1976; 27:533–543.
Orford J. Addiction as excessive appetite. Addiction. 2001; 96:15–31. [PubMed: 11177517]
Ostafin, BD.; Palfai, TP. Implicit cognition and cross-addictive behaviors. In: Wiers, RW.; Stacy,
AW., editors. Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2006.
p. 393-407.
Ouellette JA, Wood W. Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past
behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin. 1998; 124:54–74.
Author Manuscript
Palamar JJ, Mukherjee PP, Halkitis PN. A longitudinal investigation of powder cocaine use among
club-drug using gay and bisexual men. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2008; 69:806–
813. [PubMed: 18925338]
Palfai TP, Ostafin BD. Alcohol-related motivational tendencies in hazardous drinkers: Assessing
implicit response tendencies using the modified-IAT. Behavior Research and Therapy. 2003;
41:1149–1162.
Palfai TP, Weafer J. College student drinking and meaning in the pursuit of life goals. Psychology of
Papies E, Stroebe W, Aarts H. Pleasure in the mind: Restrained eating and spontaneous hedonic
thoughts about food. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2007; 43:810–817.
Peele S. What I would most like to know: How can addiction occur with other than drug
involvements? British Journal of Addiction. 1985; 80:23–25. [PubMed: 3856445]
Peele, S.; Brodsky, A. Love and addiction. Oxford, England: Taplinger; 1975.
Perry MJ, Mandell W. Psychosocial factors associated with the initiation of cocaine use among
Author Manuscript
marijuana users. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 1995; 9:91–100.

Pervin, LA., editor. Goal concepts in personality and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1989.
Rachlin H. Four teleological theories of addiction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 1997; 4:462–473.
Redish AD. Addiction as a computational process gone awry. Science. 2004; 306:1944–1947.
[PubMed: 15591205]
Redish AD, Jensen S, Johnson A. A unified framework for addiction: Vulnerabilities in the decision
process. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2008; 31:415–437. [PubMed: 18662461]
Rescorla RA, Holland PC. Behavioral studies of associative learning in animals. Annual Review of
Psychology. 1982; 33:265–308.
Reynolds EK, MacPherson L, Tull MT, Baruch DE, Lejuez CW. Integration of the brief behavioral
activation treatment for depression (BATD) into a college orientation program: Depression and
alcohol outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2011; 58:555–564. [PubMed: 21787070]
Rhodewalt F, Madrian JC, Cheney S. Narcissism, self-knowledge organization, and emotional
reactivity: The effect of daily experiences on self-esteem and affect. Personality and Social
Author Manuscript
Psychology Bulletin. 1998; 24:75–87.

Riley SCE, James C, Gregory D, Dingle H, Cadger M. Patterns of recreational drug use at dance
events in Edinburgh, Scotland. Addiction. 2001; 96:1035–1047. [PubMed: 11440614]
Rip B, Fortin S, Vallerand RJ. The relationship between passion and injury in dance students. Journal
of Dance Medicine & Science. 2006; 10:14–20.
Robbins TW, Everitt BJ. Interaction of the dopaminergic system with mechanisms of associative
learning and cognition: Implications for drug abuse. Psychological Science. 1999; 10:199–202.
Robinson TE, Berridge KC. The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive sensitization theory of
addiction. Brain Research Reviews. 1993; 18:247–291. [PubMed: 8401595]
Robinson TE, Berridge KC. Addiction. Annual Review of Psychology. 2003; 54:25–53.
Robinson TE, Berridge KC. Incentive-sensitization and drug “wanting”. Psychopharmacology. 2004;
171:352–353.
Rogers RD, Robbins TW. Investigating the neurocognitive deficits associated with chronic drug
misuse. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 2001; 11:250–257. [PubMed: 11301247]
Author Manuscript
Rooke SE, Hine DW, Thorsteinsson EB. Implicit cognition and substance use: A meta-analysis.
Scitovsky, T. The joyless economy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1992.
Shaffer HJ, LaPlante DA, LaBrie RA, Kidman RC, Donato AN, Stanton MV. Toward a syndrome
model of addiction: Multiple expressions, common etiology. Harvard Review of Psychiatry.
2004; 12:367–374. [PubMed: 15764471]
Shah J. Automatic for the people: How representations of significant others implicitly affect goal
pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 84:661–681. [PubMed: 12703642]
Shah, J. Preface. In: Shah, J.; Gardner, W., editors. Handbook of motivation science. New York, NY:
Guilford Press; 2008. p. xi-xiv.
Author Manuscript
Shah JY, Friedman R, Kruglanski AW. Forgetting all else: On the antecedents and consequences of
goal shielding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002; 83:1261–1280. [PubMed:
12500810]
Shah JY, Kruglanski AW. Priming against your will: How accessible alternatives affect goal pursuit.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2002; 38:368–383.
Shah JY, Kruglanski AW. When opportunity knocks: Bottom-up priming of goals by means and its
effects on self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 84:1109–1122.
[PubMed: 12793579]
Shaham Y, Erb S, Stewart J. Stress-induced relapse to heroin and cocaine seeking in rats: A review.
Brain Research Reviews. 2000; 33:13–33. [PubMed: 10967352]
Shalev U, Grimm JW, Shaham Y. Neurobiology of relapse to heroin and cocaine seeking: A review.
Pharmacological Review. 2002; 54:1–42.
Sheeran P, Aarts H, Custers R, Rivis A, Webb TL, Cooke R. The goal dependent automaticity of
drinking habits. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2005; 44:47–63. [PubMed: 15901391]
Author Manuscript
Sherman SJ, Rose JS, Koch K, Presson CC, Chassin L. Implicit and explicit attitudes toward cigarette
smoking: The effects of context and motivation. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology. 2003;
22:13–39.
Shiffman, S. The tobacco withdrawal syndrome. In: Krasnegor, NA., editor. Cigarette smoking as a
dependence process. Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1979. p. 158-184.
Sirgy M. Materialism and quality of life. Social Indicators Research. 1998; 43:227–260.
Skinner BF. Two types of conditioned reflex: A reply to Miller and Konorski. Journal of General
Psychology. 1937; 16:272–279.
Skinner, BF. Science and human behavior. Oxford, England: Macmillan; 1953.
Smith, R. Television addiction. In: Bryant, J.; Zillmann, D., editors. Perspectives on media effects.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1986. p. 109-128.
Solarz AK. Latency of instrumental responses as a function of compatibility with the meaning of
eliciting verbal signs. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1960; 59:239–245. [PubMed:
13832584]
Author Manuscript
Solomon, RL. Addiction: An opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: The affective dynamics
of addiction. In: Maser, JD.; Seligman, MP., editors. Psychopathology: Experimental models.
New York, NY: Henry Holt; 1977. p. 66-103.
Solomon RL, Corbit JD. An opponent-process theory of motivation: II. Cigarette addiction. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology. 1973; 81:158–171. [PubMed: 4697797]
Solomon RL, Corbit JD. An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect.
Psychological Review. 1974; 81:119–145. [PubMed: 4817611]
Spence, KW. The role of motivation in conditioning. In: Spence, KW., editor. Behavior theory and
conditioning. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1956. p. 165-198.
Spijkerman R, van den Eijnden RM, Engels RE. Self-comparison processes, prototypes, and smoking
onset among early adolescents. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to
Practice and Theory. 2005; 40:785–794.
Stacy AW. Memory activation and expectancy as prospective predictors of alcohol and marijuana use.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1997; 106:61–73. [PubMed: 9103718]
Author Manuscript
Stacy, AW.; Ames, SL.; Grenard, JL. Word association tests of associative memory and implicit
processes: Theoretical and assessment issues. In: Wiers, RW.; Stacy, AW., editors. Handbook of
implicit cognition and addiction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2006. p. 75-90.
Stewart J, de Wit H, Eikelboom R. Role of unconditioned and conditioned drug effects in the self-
administration of opiates and stimulants. Psychological Review. 1984; 91:251–268. [PubMed:
6571424]
Stewart J, Wise RA. Reinstatement of heroin self-administration habits: Morphine prompts and
naltrexone discourages renewed responding after extinction. Psychopharmacology. 1992;
108:79–84. [PubMed: 1410149]
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2010 National Survey
on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication
Author Manuscript
No. (SMA) 11-4658. Rockville, MD: Author; 2011.

Taylor, SE.; Fiske, ST. Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In: Berkowitz,
L., editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. New York, NY; Academic Press; 1978.
p. 249-288.
Tiffany ST. A cognitive model of drug urges and drug-use behavior: Role of automatic and
nonautomatic processes. Psychological Review. 1990; 97:147–168. [PubMed: 2186423]
Tiffany ST, Conklin CA. A cognitive processing model of alcohol craving and compulsive alcohol
use. Addiction. 2000; 95:S145–S153. [PubMed: 11002909]
Toates, FM. Motivational systems. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1986.
Tolman EC. Psychology versus immediate experience. Philosophy of Science. 1935; 2:356–380.
Townshend JM, Duka T. Attentional bias associated with alcohol cues: Differences between heavy and
occasional social drinkers. Psychopharmacology. 2001; 157:67–74. [PubMed: 11512045]
Vallerand RJ, Blanchard C, Mageau GA, Koestner R, Ratelle C, Léonard M, Marsolais J. Les passions
de l’âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Author Manuscript
2003; 85:756–767. [PubMed: 14561128]

Veling H, Aarts H, Papies EK. Using stop signals to inhibit chronic dieters’ responses toward palatable
foods. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2011; 49:771–780. [PubMed: 21906724]
Vohs KD, Baumeister RF. Introduction to special issue: Emotion and decision making. Review of
General Psychology. 2007; 11:98.
Vohs, KD.; Baumeister, RR. Can satisfaction reinforce wanting? A new theory about long-term
changes in strength of motivation. In: Shah, JY.; Gardner, WL., editors. Handbook of motivation
science. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. p. 373-389.
Vohs KD, Heatherton TF. Self-regulatory failure: A resource-depletion approach. Psychological
Science. 2000; 11:249–254. [PubMed: 11273412]
Volkow ND, Fowler JS, Wolf AP, Hitzemann R. Changes in brain glucose metabolism in cocaine
dependence and withdrawal. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1991; 148:621–626. [PubMed:
2018164]
Volkow ND, Hitzemann R, Wang G-J, Fowler JS. Decreased brain metabolism in neurologically intact
Author Manuscript
healthy alcoholics. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1992; 149:1016–1022. [PubMed: 1636801]

Volkow ND, Wise RA. How can drug addiction help us understand obesity? Nature Neuroscience.
2005; 8:555–560.
Waldrop AE, Back SE, Verduin ML, Brady KT. Triggers for cocaine and alcohol use in the presence
and absence of posttraumatic stress disorder. Addictive Behaviors. 2007; 32:634–639. [PubMed:
16863682]
Ward A, Mann T. Don’t mind if I do: Disinhibited eating under cognitive load. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 2000; 78:753–763. [PubMed: 10794378]
Waters AJ, Shiffman S, Sayette MA, Paty JA, Gwaltney CJ, Balabanis MH. Attentional bias predicts
outcome in smoking cessation. Health Psychology. 2003; 22:378–387. [PubMed: 12940394]
Weil, A.; Rosen, W. From chocolate to morphine. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 1993.
Weinstein AM, Feldtkeller BT, Law F, Myles J, Nutt DJ. The processing of automatic thoughts of
drug use and craving in opiate-dependent individuals. Experimental and Clinical
Author Manuscript
Wiers RW, Eberl C, Rinck M, Becker ES, Lindenmeyer J. Retraining automatic action tendencies
changes alcoholic patients’ approach bias for alcohol and improves treatment outcome.
Psychological Science. 2011; 22:490–497. [PubMed: 21389338]
Wiers RW, van de Luitgaarden J, van den Wildenberg E, Smulders FTY. Challenging implicit and
explicit alcohol-related cognitions in young heavy drinkers. Addiction. 2005; 100:806–819.
[PubMed: 15918811]
Wiers RW, Van Woerden N, Smulders FY, De Jong PJ. Implicit and explicit alcohol-related
cognitions in heavy and light drinkers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2002; 111:648–658.
[PubMed: 12428778]
Wikler A. Recent progress in research on die neurophysiologic basis of morphine addiction. American
Journal of Psychiatry. 1948; 105:329–338. [PubMed: 18890902]
Author Manuscript
Wilson TD, Centerbar DB, Kermer DA, Gilbert DT. The pleasures of uncertainty: Prolonging positive
moods in ways people do not anticipate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005;
88:5–21. [PubMed: 15631571]
Wise RA. Neuroleptics and operant behavior: The anhedonia hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences. 1982; 5:39–87.
Wise, RA. Intravenous drug self-administration: A special case of positive reinforcement. In: Bozarth,
MA., editor. Methods of assessing the reinforcing properties of abused drugs. New York, NY:
Springer-Verlag; 1987. p. 117-141.
Wise, RA. Addiction. In: Pashler, H.; Gallistel, R., editors. Steven’s handbook of experimental
psychology: Learning, motivation, and emotion. 3rd ed.. Vol. 3. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons; 2002. p. 801-840.
Wise, RA. Drive, incentive, and reinforcement: The antecedents and consequences of motivation. In:
Bevins, RA.; Bardo, MT., editors. The Nebraska symposium on motivation: Motivational factors
in the etiology of drug abuse. Vol. 50. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press; 2004. p. 159-195.
Author Manuscript
Wise RA, Bozarth MA. A psychomotor stimulant theory of addiction. Psychological Review. 1987;
94:469–492. [PubMed: 3317472]
Woods, JH.; Ikomi, F.; Winger, G. The reinforcing property of ethanol. In: Roach, MK.; McIsaae,
WM.; Creaven, PJ., editors. Biological aspects of alcohol. Austin: University of Texas Press;
1971. p. 371-388.
Woods, JH.; Schuster, CR. Opiates as reinforcing stimuli. In: Thompson, T.; Pickens, R., editors.
Stimulus properties of drugs. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1971. p. 163-175.
Woodworth, RS. Columbia University lectures: Dynamic psychology. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press; 1918. Drive and mechanism in social behavior; p. 177-206.
Yaxley RH, Zwaan RA. Attentional bias affects change detection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
2005; 12:1106–1111. [PubMed: 16615336]
Young, PT. Motivation and emotion: A survey of the determinants of human and animal activity.
Oxford, England: Wiley; 1961.
Zack M, Belsito L, Scher R, Eissenberg T, Corrigall WA. Effects of abstinence and smoking on
Author Manuscript
information processing in adolescent smokers. Psychopharmacology. 2001; 153:249–257.

[PubMed: 11205427]
Zhang Y, Fishbach A, Kruglanski AW. The dilution model: How additional goals undermine the
perceived instrumentality of a shared path. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007;
92:389–401. [PubMed: 17352599]
Author Manuscript

HHS Public Access: Motivation and Self-Regulation in Addiction: A Call For Convergence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HHS Public Access: Motivation and Self-Regulation in Addiction: A Call For Convergence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HHS Public Access

Published in final edited form as:

Motivation and Self-Regulation in Addiction: A Call for

© The Author(s) 2013

heterogeneous motives, such as socializing or fitting in (with a drug using culture).

importance of motivation in understanding addiction. However, there is little agreement

consequences. On the one hand, addiction is viewed as a “special,” unique phenomenon

maintenance of addiction, we emphasize the commonalities and highlight the continuities

What Is So Special (and Nonspecial) About Addiction?

Addiction: Dependence and negative reinforcement

measured. Thus, the notion of physiological dependence offered a potential explanation of

However, as research progressed, it soon became apparent that dependence is neither a

administration is rapidly established in the absence of classic dependence signs (Deneau,

Addiction: Appetitive processes

development of drug self-administration follows the laws of reinforcement, as revealed by

Other motivated behaviors

(Vallerand et al., 2003).

Numerous other activities could be pursued in an addictionlike pattern, whereby an initially

Addiction as a Motivated Behavior

A new look in motivation: The basic principles of motivated behavior

Cognitive principles of motivated behavior—As a type of cognition, motivational

Motivational principles of motivated behavior—Beyond their cognitive properties,

Affective principles of motivated behavior—By sheer association, in addition to the

The new look approach to motivation in addiction

What underlies the transition from casual drug use to addiction?—A

where accidental drug self-administration in highly controlled environments becomes

attainment may provide valuable insights into these issues.

strengthening of the association between a goal and a means facilitates a process of

change in individuals’ conscious evaluation (or affective experience) of that behavior

What perpetuates drug use? Automatic goal activation and pursuit

into such questions.

attempts), the individual’s ability to maintain abstinence is substantially weakened. During

2011) incorporated a motivational retraining in the regular treatment administered to

showed a strong avoidance bias toward alcohol-related stimuli. Furthermore, participants in

So What Is So Special About Drugs? Conclusions and Prospects

Vol. 2. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1990. p. 93-130.

Guilford Press; 2011. p. 3-21.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2004; 87:557–572. [PubMed: 15535771]

temptations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006; 90:820–832. [PubMed:

Press; 1994. p. 37-57.

moderates the predictive effects of drug-related associations on substance use. Psychology of

Higgins, ET.; King, G. Accessibility of social constructs: Information processing consequences of

Psychology. 1996; 64:295–304. [PubMed: 8871414]

Alcoholism is a disinhibitory disorder: Neurophysiological evidence from a Go/No-Go task.

York, NY: Guilford Press; 2009b. p. 27-55.

Psychoactive Drugs. 2000; 32:239–248. [PubMed: 11061674]

623. [PubMed: 18552986]

processing model. Psychological Inquiry. 2001; 12:177–196.

marijuana users. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 1995; 9:91–100.

Psychology Bulletin. 1998; 24:75–87.

No. (SMA) 11-4658. Rockville, MD: Author; 2011.

2003; 85:756–767. [PubMed: 14561128]

healthy alcoholics. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1992; 149:1016–1022. [PubMed: 1636801]

information processing in adolescent smokers. Psychopharmacology. 2001; 153:249–257.

You might also like